Cortot 1951

Performance		0-Rank	0-Score	1-Rank	1-Score	2-Rank	2-Score	3-Rank	3-Score	3R-Rank	3R-Score	4-Rank	4-Score	NED
Afanassiev 2001		12	0.66	80	0.00	26	0.08	20	0.35	46	0.05	34	0.13
Anderszewski 2003		41	0.57	41	0.00	48	0.05	63	0.05	49	0.05	56	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		21	0.63	27	0.00	12	0.13	12	0.46	27	0.31	14	0.38
Bacha 2000		71	0.46	52	0.00	74	0.04	78	0.04	74	0.04	60	0.04
Badura 1965		47	0.56	6	0.03	38	0.06	34	0.20	34	0.27	23	0.23
Barbosa 1983		72	0.45	67	0.00	66	0.04	71	0.04	63	0.05	69	0.04
Biret 1990		16	0.65	45	0.00	15	0.09	10	0.46	34	0.23	18	0.33
Blet 2003		20	0.63	84	0.00	43	0.06	40	0.16	48	0.06	40	0.10
Block 1995		60	0.51	36	0.00	30	0.05	43	0.15	60	0.04	50	0.08
Blumental 1952		35	0.59	34	0.00	14	0.11	14	0.42	6	0.41	10	0.41
Boshniakovich 1969		31	0.61	66	0.00	60	0.06	48	0.06	54	0.05	57	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		65	0.48	65	0.00	80	0.04	66	0.04	72	0.04	61	0.04
Bunin 1987		54	0.54	78	0.00	57	0.09	46	0.09	34	0.29	30	0.16
Bunin 1987b		56	0.53	82	0.00	56	0.05	54	0.05	34	0.27	36	0.12
Chiu 1999		79	0.41	33	0.00	75	0.04	80	0.04	65	0.04	62	0.04
Cohen 1997		88	0.29	42	0.00	81	0.04	73	0.04	71	0.04	74	0.04
Cortot 1951		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Csalog 1996		77	0.43	72	0.00	72	0.03	83	0.03	56	0.05	70	0.04
Czerny 1949		5	0.71	17	0.01	7	0.13	5	0.62	20	0.40	5	0.50
Czerny 1990		10	0.68	12	0.01	19	0.07	19	0.38	49	0.05	33	0.14
Duchoud 2007		25	0.63	15	0.01	27	0.07	15	0.41	14	0.40	13	0.40
Ezaki 2006		15	0.65	14	0.01	36	0.08	30	0.28	88	0.03	42	0.09
Falvay 1989		78	0.42	62	0.00	83	0.02	86	0.02	84	0.03	88	0.02
Farrell 1958		28	0.62	21	0.00	24	0.06	24	0.30	39	0.12	26	0.19
Ferenczy 1958		14	0.66	19	0.00	13	0.15	11	0.46	7	0.45	7	0.45
Fliere 1977		13	0.66	16	0.01	41	0.06	36	0.19	70	0.03	46	0.08
Fou 1978		73	0.45	57	0.00	78	0.04	74	0.04	79	0.04	63	0.04
Francois 1956		57	0.53	46	0.00	67	0.06	49	0.06	75	0.03	76	0.04
Friedman 1923		67	0.47	86	0.00	52	0.05	62	0.05	16	0.44	31	0.15
Friedman 1923b		69	0.47	83	0.00	51	0.05	57	0.05	17	0.40	32	0.14
Friedman 1930		59	0.52	89	0.00	50	0.05	59	0.05	29	0.29	37	0.12
Garcia 2007		48	0.56	60	0.00	33	0.06	37	0.18	20	0.37	21	0.26
Garcia 2007b		74	0.45	20	0.00	23	0.07	39	0.17	30	0.17	29	0.17
Gierzod 1998		18	0.64	51	0.00	35	0.07	26	0.30	53	0.05	38	0.12
Gornostaeva 1994		49	0.56	53	0.00	65	0.04	70	0.04	85	0.02	84	0.03
Groot 1988		43	0.57	18	0.01	31	0.07	41	0.16	63	0.04	51	0.08
Harasiewicz 1955		53	0.55	31	0.00	32	0.06	25	0.30	65	0.03	45	0.09
Hatto 1993		75	0.45	91	0.00	55	0.05	61	0.05	54	0.05	58	0.05
Hatto 1997		62	0.50	77	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	49	0.07	48	0.08
Horowitz 1949		44	0.57	54	0.00	49	0.04	67	0.04	45	0.08	53	0.06
Indjic 1988		70	0.46	87	0.00	54	0.04	65	0.04	52	0.06	55	0.05
Kapell 1951		3	0.75	2	0.17	2	0.38	2	0.69	7	0.47	2	0.57
Kissin 1993		46	0.56	88	0.00	63	0.05	56	0.05	88	0.03	68	0.04
Kushner 1989		24	0.63	48	0.00	46	0.05	51	0.05	77	0.03	64	0.04
Luisada 1991		64	0.50	28	0.00	70	0.04	68	0.04	88	0.02	77	0.03
Lushtak 2004		36	0.59	26	0.00	17	0.08	23	0.31	41	0.13	25	0.20
Malcuzynski 1961		17	0.65	3	0.11	5	0.12	16	0.40	32	0.19	20	0.28
Magaloff 1978		63	0.50	44	0.00	79	0.04	72	0.04	86	0.03	78	0.03
Magin 1975		66	0.48	76	0.00	73	0.04	76	0.04	85	0.02	80	0.03
Michalowski 1933		39	0.58	70	0.00	16	0.10	17	0.39	17	0.41	12	0.40
Milkina 1970		42	0.57	49	0.00	47	0.05	53	0.05	71	0.04	66	0.04
Mohovich 1999		50	0.55	73	0.00	61	0.06	50	0.06	83	0.03	72	0.04
Moravec 1969		29	0.61	9	0.02	20	0.07	27	0.29	17	0.40	15	0.34
Morozova 2008		37	0.59	22	0.00	25	0.06	33	0.21	65	0.04	44	0.09
Neighaus 1950		22	0.63	25	0.00	34	0.06	31	0.26	65	0.04	41	0.10
Niedzielski 1931		32	0.60	10	0.02	21	0.09	22	0.33	20	0.34	17	0.33
Ohlsson 1999		34	0.59	63	0.00	39	0.06	38	0.18	56	0.05	43	0.09
Osinska 1989		4	0.72	13	0.01	10	0.13	4	0.62	25	0.34	6	0.46
Pachmann 1927		87	0.30	81	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	88	0.02	90	0.02
Paderewski 1930		19	0.64	30	0.00	37	0.07	29	0.28	19	0.31	19	0.29
Perlemuter 1992		33	0.60	68	0.00	42	0.06	42	0.15	68	0.04	47	0.08
Pierdomenico 2008		80	0.41	7	0.02	77	0.03	82	0.03	77	0.03	79	0.03
Poblocka 1999		7	0.69	11	0.02	4	0.17	8	0.49	18	0.35	9	0.41
Rabcewiczowa 1932		30	0.61	58	0.00	44	0.08	44	0.15	32	0.22	27	0.18
Rachmaninoff 1923		40	0.57	29	0.00	22	0.09	28	0.28	55	0.04	39	0.11
Rangell 2001		76	0.44	35	0.00	69	0.05	64	0.05	76	0.03	75	0.04
Richter 1976		52	0.55	40	0.00	62	0.07	47	0.07	51	0.06	54	0.06
Rosen 1989		55	0.53	37	0.00	64	0.04	69	0.04	84	0.03	83	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		38	0.59	24	0.00	53	0.05	58	0.05	21	0.33	35	0.13
Rosenthal 1931		82	0.39	50	0.00	82	0.04	75	0.04	86	0.02	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.37	71	0.00	86	0.03	85	0.03	84	0.03	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		58	0.52	23	0.00	68	0.05	60	0.05	49	0.05	59	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		83	0.38	64	0.00	87	0.03	81	0.03	79	0.03	85	0.03
Rossi 2007		81	0.41	5	0.03	18	0.07	32	0.22	23	0.29	22	0.25
Rubinstein 1939		86	0.35	74	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	76	0.03	89	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		85	0.36	55	0.00	85	0.03	84	0.03	70	0.04	87	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		61	0.51	39	0.00	71	0.04	77	0.04	66	0.04	71	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		6	0.70	59	0.00	6	0.10	6	0.61	16	0.45	4	0.52
Shebanova 2002		27	0.62	32	0.00	40	0.07	35	0.20	80	0.03	49	0.08
Smith 1975		23	0.63	56	0.00	29	0.05	21	0.35	37	0.13	24	0.21
Sokolov 2002		26	0.63	79	0.00	28	0.10	18	0.38	37	0.29	16	0.33
Sztompka 1959		1	0.77	1	0.39	1	0.38	1	0.72	7	0.54	1	0.62
Tomsic 1995		68	0.47	43	0.00	76	0.04	79	0.04	73	0.03	81	0.03
Uninsky 1932		8	0.68	75	0.00	8	0.16	7	0.55	12	0.52	3	0.53
Uninsky 1971		9	0.68	38	0.00	9	0.13	9	0.49	19	0.39	8	0.44
Wasowski 1980		11	0.67	4	0.05	11	0.13	13	0.46	16	0.35	11	0.40
Zak 1937		45	0.57	90	0.00	59	0.05	52	0.05	68	0.04	65	0.04
Zak 1951		51	0.55	85	0.00	58	0.05	55	0.05	77	0.03	67	0.04
Average		2	0.76	8	0.02	3	0.16	3	0.68	54	0.05	28	0.18
Random 1		90	-0.05	61	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	4	0.55	52	0.07
Random 2		91	-0.10	69	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	62	0.04	91	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.01	47	0.00	90	0.01	89	0.01	31	0.20	73	0.04

Column descriptions

• Performance:
• 0-Rank/0-Score: 0-Score is equivalent to Pearson correlation of the entire data sequence between the reference performance and a test performance. 0-Rank is the sorting order of the 0-scores (highest score has a rank of 1).
• 1-Rank/1-Score: 1-Score is the area fraction covered by a particular performance in the scape plot (see image above). These values should not be taken literally, since they are sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
• 2-Rank/2-Score: 2-Score values are equivalent to 1-Score values with all higher-ranking performances removed before the calculation of the area of coverage in the scape is calculated. Improvment over the 1-Rank scores, but still somewhat sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
• 3-Rank/3-Score: Similar to 2-Rank calculations. The bottom 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are kept constant as a noise floor for the similarity measurement. Then one-by-one the top 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are superimposed with the noise-floor performances, and a 3-score is measured as the area covered in the scape. This measure is not sentisive to the Hatto Effect.
• 3R-Rank/3R-Score: Reverse 3-rank/3-scores. 3-rankings and scores are not symmetric (A->B values are different from B->A values). So this column represents similarity measures in the opposite direction.
• 4-Rank/4-Score: The geometric mean between 3-scores and 3R-scores. This column gives the best overall similarity ranking between the various performances (see color codes below).
• NED: Noise Equivalient Distance (not yet implemented)

Color codes for 3-rank listings:

• red = strongly similar performance to target
• orange = moderately similar performance
• yellow = weakly similar performance
• green = marginally similar/dissimilar performance
• white = dissimilar to target
• blue = false positive (has high 3-rank score but low 3R-rank score)

3-rank/scores are not symmetric, so the 3R-rank/score columns give the 3-rank/scores going in the opposite direction. More matches in the 3-rank column than in the 3R-rank column indicates an individualistic performance, while more matches in the 3R-rank column indicates a mainstream performance.

If a 3-rank and a 3R-rank are both marked as similar to each other, then there is a possible direct relation between the performances. If one is similar to the other but not in the reverse direction, then the similarity is more likely to be by chance (performers randomly chose a similar interpretation).