Fliere 1977

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		4	0.81	23	0.00	8	0.13	7	0.53	5	0.57	11	0.55
Anderszewski 2003		40	0.69	88	0.00	53	0.05	50	0.05	20	0.30	63	0.12
Ashkenazy 1981		36	0.70	24	0.00	20	0.08	23	0.36	12	0.48	26	0.42
Bacha 2000		73	0.58	61	0.00	66	0.03	68	0.03	26	0.30	76	0.09
Badura 1965		47	0.67	21	0.00	34	0.05	34	0.26	4	0.57	33	0.38
Barbosa 1983		72	0.58	51	0.00	60	0.04	64	0.04	11	0.46	53	0.14
Biret 1990		35	0.70	69	0.00	43	0.06	41	0.15	19	0.34	42	0.23
Blet 2003		14	0.77	35	0.00	22	0.09	19	0.40	2	0.59	16	0.49
Block 1995		66	0.61	45	0.00	42	0.06	43	0.12	9	0.43	41	0.23
Blumental 1952		83	0.49	57	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	78	0.02	89	0.02
Boshniakovich 1969		10	0.79	5	0.01	6	0.11	10	0.51	4	0.63	8	0.57
Brailowsky 1960		38	0.70	32	0.00	51	0.04	55	0.04	8	0.52	52	0.14
Bunin 1987		61	0.63	50	0.00	59	0.04	62	0.04	16	0.42	59	0.13
Bunin 1987b		63	0.63	43	0.00	58	0.04	57	0.04	18	0.43	57	0.13
Chiu 1999		64	0.63	37	0.00	38	0.06	40	0.17	3	0.61	38	0.32
Cohen 1997		88	0.36	66	0.00	87	0.03	82	0.03	41	0.08	85	0.05
Cortot 1951		51	0.66	79	0.00	69	0.03	70	0.03	36	0.19	79	0.08
Csalog 1996		82	0.50	33	0.00	68	0.04	60	0.04	31	0.23	74	0.10
Czerny 1949		22	0.75	62	0.00	32	0.08	33	0.28	14	0.47	36	0.36
Czerny 1990		7	0.80	58	0.00	19	0.08	20	0.40	12	0.50	21	0.45
Duchoud 2007		52	0.66	34	0.00	48	0.05	51	0.05	15	0.39	54	0.14
Ezaki 2006		5	0.80	11	0.01	15	0.12	16	0.43	6	0.52	17	0.47
Falvay 1989		70	0.59	64	0.00	62	0.03	71	0.03	58	0.06	86	0.04
Farrell 1958		45	0.67	42	0.00	56	0.04	61	0.04	22	0.26	70	0.10
Ferenczy 1958		69	0.61	80	0.00	81	0.03	86	0.03	58	0.04	88	0.03
Fliere 1977		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Fou 1978		29	0.72	6	0.01	4	0.15	6	0.54	4	0.65	4	0.59
Francois 1956		44	0.68	86	0.00	54	0.04	54	0.04	26	0.32	69	0.11
Friedman 1923		86	0.45	38	0.00	86	0.03	83	0.03	37	0.22	81	0.08
Friedman 1923b		85	0.45	85	0.00	85	0.03	80	0.03	37	0.22	78	0.08
Friedman 1930		75	0.58	22	0.00	72	0.03	79	0.03	22	0.39	68	0.11
Garcia 2007		67	0.61	60	0.00	64	0.04	65	0.04	8	0.49	55	0.14
Garcia 2007b		84	0.49	52	0.00	74	0.03	84	0.03	19	0.24	80	0.08
Gierzod 1998		6	0.80	3	0.02	11	0.13	9	0.52	5	0.61	9	0.56
Gornostaeva 1994		19	0.76	46	0.00	33	0.05	37	0.24	4	0.59	34	0.38
Groot 1988		32	0.71	81	0.00	40	0.05	38	0.19	12	0.52	39	0.31
Harasiewicz 1955		42	0.69	13	0.01	13	0.10	17	0.42	4	0.49	22	0.45
Hatto 1993		65	0.62	39	0.00	35	0.05	31	0.29	8	0.60	27	0.42
Hatto 1997		55	0.65	74	0.00	37	0.08	32	0.29	10	0.50	32	0.38
Horowitz 1949		41	0.69	44	0.00	46	0.07	46	0.07	11	0.58	46	0.20
Indjic 1988		60	0.63	56	0.00	36	0.07	30	0.30	7	0.61	23	0.43
Kapell 1951		28	0.72	36	0.00	41	0.06	39	0.18	24	0.30	40	0.23
Kissin 1993		9	0.79	26	0.00	3	0.19	3	0.55	4	0.70	3	0.62
Kushner 1989		3	0.81	15	0.01	16	0.12	15	0.44	4	0.59	13	0.51
Luisada 1991		17	0.76	10	0.01	10	0.12	11	0.48	2	0.63	10	0.55
Lushtak 2004		31	0.71	70	0.00	25	0.07	25	0.31	3	0.49	31	0.39
Malcuzynski 1961		33	0.71	55	0.00	52	0.04	53	0.04	13	0.42	58	0.13
Magaloff 1978		25	0.74	25	0.00	21	0.08	26	0.31	3	0.56	24	0.42
Magin 1975		30	0.71	14	0.01	29	0.06	28	0.31	8	0.49	30	0.39
Michalowski 1933		79	0.55	83	0.00	77	0.03	75	0.03	45	0.13	82	0.06
Milkina 1970		26	0.74	54	0.00	27	0.06	24	0.32	7	0.54	25	0.42
Mohovich 1999		20	0.76	63	0.00	28	0.05	27	0.31	13	0.52	28	0.40
Moravec 1969		81	0.53	67	0.00	83	0.03	76	0.03	62	0.04	87	0.03
Morozova 2008		24	0.75	16	0.01	14	0.14	14	0.45	3	0.55	15	0.50
Neighaus 1950		2	0.82	4	0.02	2	0.24	2	0.64	2	0.70	2	0.67
Niedzielski 1931		53	0.66	47	0.00	63	0.03	73	0.03	9	0.46	61	0.12
Ohlsson 1999		11	0.79	30	0.00	12	0.12	12	0.48	8	0.52	14	0.50
Osinska 1989		8	0.79	53	0.00	23	0.08	22	0.38	6	0.57	18	0.47
Pachmann 1927		56	0.64	27	0.00	57	0.04	56	0.04	2	0.66	49	0.16
Paderewski 1930		50	0.66	73	0.00	70	0.03	85	0.03	14	0.35	72	0.10
Perlemuter 1992		37	0.70	20	0.01	30	0.06	36	0.24	5	0.52	37	0.35
Pierdomenico 2008		68	0.61	71	0.00	76	0.03	72	0.03	25	0.37	66	0.11
Poblocka 1999		13	0.78	9	0.01	17	0.13	13	0.47	3	0.57	12	0.52
Rabcewiczowa 1932		58	0.64	40	0.00	61	0.04	67	0.04	35	0.21	77	0.09
Rachmaninoff 1923		34	0.71	18	0.01	31	0.06	35	0.25	7	0.51	35	0.36
Rangell 2001		71	0.59	12	0.01	65	0.04	66	0.04	8	0.46	56	0.14
Richter 1976		46	0.67	41	0.00	47	0.05	48	0.05	6	0.54	48	0.16
Rosen 1989		21	0.75	19	0.01	24	0.10	21	0.39	4	0.56	19	0.47
Rosenthal 1930		54	0.66	72	0.00	71	0.03	77	0.03	13	0.47	64	0.12
Rosenthal 1931		76	0.57	82	0.00	78	0.02	87	0.02	14	0.50	73	0.10
Rosenthal 1931b		77	0.56	84	0.00	79	0.03	78	0.03	15	0.45	65	0.12
Rosenthal 1931c		57	0.64	48	0.00	73	0.03	69	0.03	11	0.53	60	0.13
Rosenthal 1931d		74	0.58	89	0.00	80	0.05	52	0.05	14	0.45	50	0.15
Rossi 2007		87	0.43	68	0.00	88	0.04	59	0.04	54	0.06	83	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		80	0.54	77	0.00	82	0.03	74	0.03	8	0.42	67	0.11
Rubinstein 1952		78	0.56	28	0.00	50	0.05	49	0.05	23	0.44	51	0.15
Rubinstein 1966		39	0.70	76	0.00	49	0.06	47	0.06	6	0.63	47	0.19
Schilhawsky 1960		15	0.77	75	0.00	18	0.10	18	0.40	11	0.50	20	0.45
Shebanova 2002		12	0.78	2	0.03	9	0.12	8	0.52	3	0.63	7	0.57
Smith 1975		18	0.76	31	0.00	26	0.06	29	0.30	9	0.51	29	0.39
Sokolov 2002		43	0.69	59	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.12	33	0.34	45	0.20
Sztompka 1959		27	0.73	17	0.01	45	0.07	42	0.13	23	0.34	44	0.21
Tomsic 1995		62	0.63	78	0.00	75	0.03	81	0.03	29	0.31	71	0.10
Uninsky 1932		59	0.63	65	0.00	67	0.04	63	0.04	32	0.26	75	0.10
Uninsky 1971		48	0.67	49	0.00	55	0.04	58	0.04	27	0.34	62	0.12
Wasowski 1980		49	0.67	7	0.01	39	0.06	45	0.11	7	0.40	43	0.21
Zak 1937		16	0.76	29	0.00	7	0.10	5	0.54	4	0.64	5	0.59
Zak 1951		23	0.75	8	0.01	5	0.15	4	0.55	4	0.64	6	0.59
Average		1	0.92	1	0.74	1	0.74	1	0.87	1	0.75	1	0.81
Random 1		90	-0.13	90	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	57	0.04	90	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.08	87	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	40	0.11	84	0.05
Random 3		91	-0.14	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	88	0.02	91	0.01

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).