Hatto 1997

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		28	0.56	62	0.00	29	0.06	24	0.26	43	0.11	34	0.17
Anderszewski 2003		4	0.71	73	0.00	4	0.23	8	0.53	3	0.55	4	0.54
Ashkenazy 1981		3	0.73	37	0.00	6	0.19	4	0.58	6	0.52	3	0.55
Bacha 2000		31	0.56	21	0.00	49	0.05	54	0.05	38	0.17	48	0.09
Badura 1965		49	0.50	31	0.00	58	0.04	63	0.04	28	0.34	40	0.12
Barbosa 1983		55	0.49	79	0.00	65	0.08	46	0.08	39	0.17	38	0.12
Biret 1990		14	0.61	4	0.00	25	0.07	18	0.32	33	0.24	19	0.28
Blet 2003		16	0.61	80	0.00	26	0.09	21	0.28	25	0.29	18	0.28
Block 1995		85	0.29	14	0.00	79	0.03	78	0.03	79	0.03	82	0.03
Blumental 1952		38	0.54	39	0.00	57	0.04	72	0.04	29	0.17	57	0.08
Boshniakovich 1969		58	0.47	22	0.00	51	0.03	76	0.03	35	0.19	58	0.08
Brailowsky 1960		57	0.47	74	0.00	72	0.04	68	0.04	49	0.05	71	0.04
Bunin 1987		44	0.52	23	0.00	60	0.05	51	0.05	33	0.29	42	0.12
Bunin 1987b		46	0.51	45	0.00	59	0.04	60	0.04	33	0.31	44	0.11
Chiu 1999		33	0.55	63	0.00	54	0.04	73	0.04	33	0.21	49	0.09
Cohen 1997		68	0.43	72	0.00	76	0.04	62	0.04	29	0.20	51	0.09
Cortot 1951		48	0.50	81	0.00	63	0.07	49	0.07	45	0.10	59	0.08
Csalog 1996		79	0.31	49	0.00	67	0.05	59	0.05	35	0.17	50	0.09
Czerny 1949		43	0.52	16	0.00	32	0.06	27	0.22	38	0.16	31	0.19
Czerny 1990		30	0.56	9	0.00	36	0.05	42	0.11	77	0.03	64	0.06
Duchoud 2007		18	0.60	64	0.00	17	0.08	20	0.31	13	0.40	13	0.35
Ezaki 2006		12	0.63	27	0.00	24	0.05	22	0.28	47	0.06	36	0.13
Falvay 1989		78	0.33	38	0.00	84	0.03	83	0.03	69	0.04	77	0.03
Farrell 1958		23	0.58	67	0.00	55	0.03	80	0.03	57	0.05	72	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		34	0.55	25	0.00	35	0.07	36	0.14	20	0.30	29	0.20
Fliere 1977		9	0.65	65	0.00	9	0.17	10	0.50	32	0.29	11	0.38
Fou 1978		41	0.53	40	0.00	40	0.04	33	0.17	63	0.04	54	0.08
Francois 1956		73	0.39	51	0.00	70	0.04	69	0.04	73	0.03	88	0.03
Friedman 1923		22	0.58	89	0.00	28	0.07	30	0.21	22	0.34	21	0.27
Friedman 1923b		20	0.58	88	0.00	27	0.07	29	0.21	21	0.36	20	0.27
Friedman 1930		21	0.58	55	0.00	16	0.09	25	0.25	12	0.47	14	0.34
Garcia 2007		50	0.50	82	0.00	61	0.05	55	0.05	43	0.10	60	0.07
Garcia 2007b		63	0.45	41	0.00	56	0.03	79	0.03	42	0.10	69	0.05
Gierzod 1998		11	0.63	33	0.00	14	0.14	9	0.52	21	0.36	9	0.43
Gornostaeva 1994		74	0.39	60	0.00	74	0.04	65	0.04	72	0.03	84	0.03
Groot 1988		70	0.41	56	0.00	71	0.03	81	0.03	82	0.03	86	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		47	0.51	34	0.00	21	0.07	31	0.21	38	0.16	32	0.18
Hatto 1993		2	0.98	2	0.03	2	0.94	2	0.97	2	0.98	2	0.97
Hatto 1997		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Horowitz 1949		51	0.50	83	0.00	41	0.06	35	0.14	36	0.31	28	0.21
Indjic 1988		1	0.99	1	0.95	1	0.94	1	0.98	2	0.99	1	0.98
Kapell 1951		26	0.57	52	0.00	13	0.12	14	0.40	28	0.28	15	0.33
Kissin 1993		59	0.47	50	0.00	44	0.05	40	0.11	50	0.06	56	0.08
Kushner 1989		42	0.53	13	0.00	62	0.05	52	0.05	50	0.05	68	0.05
Luisada 1991		6	0.70	59	0.00	7	0.17	7	0.53	14	0.48	5	0.50
Lushtak 2004		8	0.67	8	0.00	15	0.16	15	0.39	24	0.25	16	0.31
Malcuzynski 1961		75	0.38	5	0.00	45	0.05	44	0.09	52	0.04	63	0.06
Magaloff 1978		65	0.44	7	0.00	42	0.05	38	0.13	58	0.05	53	0.08
Magin 1975		27	0.56	36	0.00	18	0.08	19	0.31	28	0.22	22	0.26
Michalowski 1933		67	0.43	53	0.00	31	0.07	26	0.23	30	0.30	23	0.26
Milkina 1970		60	0.47	42	0.00	47	0.04	61	0.04	65	0.05	73	0.04
Mohovich 1999		53	0.49	43	0.00	50	0.05	56	0.05	42	0.11	61	0.07
Moravec 1969		77	0.33	46	0.00	77	0.03	82	0.03	73	0.03	75	0.03
Morozova 2008		10	0.64	47	0.00	8	0.12	23	0.27	25	0.24	25	0.25
Neighaus 1950		15	0.61	54	0.00	20	0.07	12	0.46	39	0.15	24	0.26
Niedzielski 1931		66	0.44	10	0.00	39	0.05	41	0.11	29	0.25	33	0.17
Ohlsson 1999		7	0.69	32	0.00	5	0.13	5	0.57	11	0.44	6	0.50
Osinska 1989		56	0.49	17	0.00	64	0.08	47	0.08	68	0.04	62	0.06
Pachmann 1927		71	0.40	57	0.00	75	0.04	66	0.04	25	0.23	47	0.10
Paderewski 1930		61	0.47	76	0.00	66	0.07	48	0.07	35	0.16	45	0.11
Perlemuter 1992		62	0.45	84	0.00	69	0.05	58	0.05	77	0.03	70	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		81	0.30	28	0.00	78	0.03	84	0.03	75	0.03	79	0.03
Poblocka 1999		25	0.57	58	0.00	10	0.12	11	0.47	20	0.33	10	0.39
Rabcewiczowa 1932		69	0.42	29	0.00	68	0.06	50	0.06	60	0.04	67	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		40	0.53	85	0.00	53	0.04	71	0.04	46	0.06	66	0.05
Rangell 2001		87	0.26	35	0.00	81	0.04	67	0.04	44	0.10	65	0.06
Richter 1976		64	0.45	12	0.00	48	0.05	53	0.05	22	0.31	37	0.12
Rosen 1989		52	0.50	61	0.00	43	0.05	39	0.12	42	0.12	41	0.12
Rosenthal 1930		72	0.39	71	0.00	73	0.04	74	0.04	75	0.03	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		84	0.29	66	0.00	87	0.03	75	0.03	88	0.02	89	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.30	75	0.00	86	0.03	87	0.03	77	0.03	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		80	0.31	20	0.00	83	0.03	85	0.03	83	0.02	91	0.02
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.28	3	0.00	85	0.03	88	0.03	82	0.03	85	0.03
Rossi 2007		88	0.18	68	0.00	88	0.03	86	0.03	77	0.04	76	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		24	0.58	26	0.00	22	0.06	45	0.09	29	0.29	35	0.16
Rubinstein 1952		83	0.30	86	0.00	82	0.04	64	0.04	62	0.05	74	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		13	0.62	90	0.00	46	0.05	57	0.05	35	0.24	46	0.11
Schilhawsky 1960		17	0.60	11	0.00	11	0.10	6	0.53	22	0.42	7	0.47
Shebanova 2002		37	0.54	30	0.00	30	0.06	28	0.22	31	0.26	26	0.24
Smith 1975		45	0.51	44	0.00	52	0.03	77	0.03	75	0.03	78	0.03
Sokolov 2002		36	0.54	18	0.00	33	0.06	34	0.16	66	0.04	52	0.08
Sztompka 1959		32	0.55	69	0.00	38	0.05	43	0.10	58	0.06	55	0.08
Tomsic 1995		76	0.38	15	0.00	80	0.04	70	0.04	77	0.03	80	0.03
Uninsky 1932		54	0.49	77	0.00	34	0.05	32	0.18	34	0.23	30	0.20
Uninsky 1971		39	0.53	91	0.00	12	0.11	13	0.45	12	0.47	8	0.46
Wasowski 1980		35	0.54	19	0.00	37	0.05	37	0.13	42	0.09	43	0.11
Zak 1937		19	0.59	24	0.00	23	0.06	16	0.35	31	0.24	17	0.29
Zak 1951		29	0.56	48	0.00	19	0.08	17	0.34	34	0.16	27	0.23
Average		5	0.71	6	0.00	3	0.25	3	0.69	36	0.19	12	0.36
Random 1		91	-0.15	87	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	55	0.04	90	0.02
Random 2		89	0.01	78	0.00	89	0.03	89	0.03	6	0.48	39	0.12
Random 3		90	0.00	70	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	48	0.05	83	0.03

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).