Ferenczy 1958

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		10	0.65	31	0.00	18	0.07	16	0.32	44	0.10	22	0.18
Anderszewski 2003		23	0.59	26	0.00	15	0.09	14	0.36	40	0.09	21	0.18
Ashkenazy 1981		48	0.52	41	0.00	33	0.06	32	0.20	43	0.11	27	0.15
Bacha 2000		37	0.54	52	0.00	41	0.04	42	0.08	34	0.18	34	0.12
Badura 1965		63	0.49	19	0.01	45	0.04	46	0.07	67	0.04	51	0.05
Barbosa 1983		45	0.53	12	0.01	31	0.07	30	0.21	23	0.28	17	0.24
Biret 1990		26	0.58	73	0.00	34	0.07	28	0.22	43	0.13	24	0.17
Blet 2003		5	0.68	43	0.00	14	0.09	12	0.37	23	0.31	9	0.34
Block 1995		58	0.50	67	0.00	70	0.04	60	0.04	62	0.04	65	0.04
Blumental 1952		64	0.49	35	0.00	10	0.13	23	0.28	17	0.28	15	0.28
Boshniakovich 1969		56	0.51	69	0.00	77	0.03	83	0.03	83	0.02	88	0.02
Brailowsky 1960		44	0.54	11	0.01	69	0.04	71	0.04	78	0.04	55	0.04
Bunin 1987		25	0.59	14	0.01	29	0.07	18	0.32	28	0.32	12	0.32
Bunin 1987b		27	0.58	16	0.01	30	0.09	19	0.31	29	0.33	11	0.32
Chiu 1999		78	0.40	46	0.00	76	0.03	86	0.03	79	0.03	71	0.03
Cohen 1997		76	0.40	10	0.01	40	0.05	39	0.11	27	0.21	28	0.15
Cortot 1951		7	0.66	30	0.00	8	0.11	7	0.45	11	0.46	5	0.45
Csalog 1996		38	0.54	9	0.02	36	0.05	29	0.22	17	0.40	14	0.30
Czerny 1949		18	0.61	38	0.00	23	0.06	15	0.35	37	0.17	18	0.24
Czerny 1990		13	0.63	36	0.00	26	0.06	26	0.26	56	0.05	37	0.11
Duchoud 2007		62	0.49	74	0.00	60	0.04	61	0.04	52	0.05	64	0.04
Ezaki 2006		9	0.66	5	0.03	17	0.10	10	0.40	71	0.04	32	0.13
Falvay 1989		52	0.51	18	0.01	44	0.04	44	0.07	71	0.04	46	0.05
Farrell 1958		49	0.52	70	0.00	64	0.04	66	0.04	86	0.03	74	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Fliere 1977		19	0.61	85	0.00	48	0.04	58	0.04	86	0.03	70	0.03
Fou 1978		66	0.48	78	0.00	74	0.03	85	0.03	75	0.04	75	0.03
Francois 1956		24	0.59	15	0.01	39	0.06	38	0.12	39	0.15	33	0.13
Friedman 1923		83	0.35	66	0.00	56	0.05	55	0.05	44	0.14	42	0.08
Friedman 1923b		85	0.35	77	0.00	55	0.05	57	0.05	44	0.12	41	0.08
Friedman 1930		69	0.45	57	0.00	50	0.06	47	0.06	41	0.15	39	0.09
Garcia 2007		61	0.50	64	0.00	52	0.06	50	0.06	61	0.04	50	0.05
Garcia 2007b		74	0.41	17	0.01	32	0.06	35	0.16	33	0.14	29	0.15
Gierzod 1998		28	0.57	72	0.00	49	0.06	49	0.06	61	0.04	49	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		39	0.54	25	0.00	66	0.04	72	0.04	86	0.02	81	0.03
Groot 1988		32	0.55	37	0.00	58	0.05	56	0.05	53	0.04	69	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		50	0.52	21	0.01	38	0.07	36	0.14	86	0.02	52	0.05
Hatto 1993		67	0.48	80	0.00	22	0.08	34	0.20	56	0.05	38	0.10
Hatto 1997		34	0.55	24	0.01	12	0.13	20	0.30	36	0.14	20	0.20
Horowitz 1949		73	0.42	42	0.00	82	0.03	74	0.03	75	0.03	77	0.03
Indjic 1988		54	0.51	75	0.00	21	0.07	31	0.21	45	0.09	31	0.14
Kapell 1951		1	0.78	1	0.56	1	0.56	1	0.73	5	0.50	1	0.60
Kissin 1993		60	0.50	79	0.00	78	0.03	84	0.03	81	0.03	79	0.03
Kushner 1989		35	0.55	59	0.00	61	0.05	54	0.05	73	0.03	58	0.04
Luisada 1991		29	0.57	22	0.01	46	0.03	75	0.03	51	0.05	54	0.04
Lushtak 2004		17	0.62	47	0.00	16	0.11	13	0.36	60	0.04	35	0.12
Malcuzynski 1961		68	0.48	60	0.00	80	0.03	73	0.03	80	0.03	76	0.03
Magaloff 1978		70	0.44	76	0.00	81	0.04	67	0.04	79	0.03	72	0.03
Magin 1975		79	0.39	86	0.00	83	0.03	87	0.03	75	0.03	73	0.03
Michalowski 1933		46	0.53	83	0.00	11	0.12	11	0.40	15	0.42	6	0.41
Milkina 1970		47	0.52	28	0.00	79	0.04	64	0.04	53	0.05	60	0.04
Mohovich 1999		15	0.63	8	0.02	28	0.08	27	0.23	52	0.05	36	0.11
Moravec 1969		53	0.51	23	0.01	63	0.05	53	0.05	45	0.14	40	0.08
Morozova 2008		59	0.50	61	0.00	59	0.03	76	0.03	85	0.02	87	0.02
Neighaus 1950		30	0.56	88	0.00	35	0.06	40	0.11	70	0.04	44	0.07
Niedzielski 1931		43	0.54	58	0.00	47	0.04	59	0.04	46	0.05	57	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		40	0.54	62	0.00	51	0.07	45	0.07	70	0.04	47	0.05
Osinska 1989		12	0.64	34	0.00	25	0.06	24	0.27	44	0.09	25	0.16
Pachmann 1927		71	0.43	53	0.00	86	0.03	78	0.03	84	0.03	78	0.03
Paderewski 1930		11	0.64	71	0.00	20	0.07	22	0.29	16	0.33	13	0.31
Perlemuter 1992		16	0.62	55	0.00	24	0.08	17	0.32	48	0.06	30	0.14
Pierdomenico 2008		84	0.35	50	0.00	84	0.03	80	0.03	84	0.02	85	0.02
Poblocka 1999		2	0.75	2	0.06	2	0.34	2	0.68	11	0.47	2	0.57
Rabcewiczowa 1932		21	0.60	39	0.00	27	0.09	25	0.27	29	0.26	16	0.26
Rachmaninoff 1923		75	0.41	44	0.00	75	0.03	81	0.03	87	0.02	84	0.02
Rangell 2001		82	0.36	56	0.00	85	0.04	68	0.04	57	0.04	68	0.04
Richter 1976		33	0.55	4	0.03	6	0.14	33	0.20	37	0.15	23	0.17
Rosen 1989		36	0.55	32	0.00	53	0.05	51	0.05	62	0.04	66	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		65	0.48	65	0.00	65	0.03	77	0.03	59	0.04	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		86	0.33	63	0.00	72	0.03	79	0.03	84	0.02	86	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		88	0.30	84	0.00	88	0.04	69	0.04	71	0.03	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		72	0.42	49	0.00	71	0.04	70	0.04	84	0.02	83	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		87	0.33	81	0.00	87	0.02	89	0.02	85	0.02	89	0.02
Rossi 2007		80	0.37	82	0.00	73	0.03	82	0.03	57	0.05	56	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		81	0.37	51	0.00	42	0.04	41	0.08	66	0.04	45	0.06
Rubinstein 1952		77	0.40	33	0.00	43	0.04	43	0.08	84	0.03	53	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		55	0.51	48	0.00	68	0.04	65	0.04	76	0.04	63	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		14	0.63	54	0.00	13	0.14	8	0.44	35	0.29	8	0.36
Shebanova 2002		31	0.56	87	0.00	54	0.06	48	0.06	62	0.04	48	0.05
Smith 1975		6	0.67	6	0.03	4	0.15	3	0.58	29	0.25	7	0.38
Sokolov 2002		42	0.54	40	0.00	37	0.06	37	0.14	62	0.04	43	0.07
Sztompka 1959		4	0.69	7	0.02	3	0.18	5	0.50	19	0.40	4	0.45
Tomsic 1995		41	0.54	29	0.00	67	0.04	63	0.04	61	0.04	62	0.04
Uninsky 1932		22	0.59	13	0.01	9	0.12	9	0.41	30	0.29	10	0.34
Uninsky 1971		8	0.66	3	0.03	5	0.14	4	0.52	18	0.40	3	0.46
Wasowski 1980		20	0.60	27	0.00	19	0.07	21	0.30	34	0.13	19	0.20
Zak 1937		51	0.52	91	0.00	62	0.05	52	0.05	76	0.04	59	0.04
Zak 1951		57	0.50	89	0.00	57	0.04	62	0.04	70	0.04	61	0.04
Average		3	0.72	20	0.01	7	0.12	6	0.49	52	0.05	26	0.16
Random 1		90	-0.19	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	80	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		91	-0.21	68	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	81	0.02	90	0.01
Random 3		89	-0.03	45	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	43	0.08	67	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).