Horowitz 1949

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		27	0.60	38	0.00	32	0.11	33	0.32	54	0.04	36	0.11
Anderszewski 2003		47	0.53	19	0.01	40	0.07	40	0.17	71	0.03	43	0.07
Ashkenazy 1981		20	0.61	29	0.00	22	0.11	15	0.48	55	0.04	32	0.14
Bacha 2000		71	0.45	85	0.00	65	0.03	73	0.03	75	0.04	69	0.03
Badura 1965		44	0.54	46	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.09	64	0.04	48	0.06
Barbosa 1983		83	0.36	57	0.00	79	0.02	84	0.02	76	0.04	75	0.03
Biret 1990		45	0.54	50	0.00	56	0.05	49	0.05	72	0.04	65	0.04
Blet 2003		67	0.47	66	0.00	76	0.04	66	0.04	77	0.03	78	0.03
Block 1995		38	0.57	23	0.00	36	0.08	37	0.30	24	0.29	17	0.29
Blumental 1952		78	0.41	55	0.00	73	0.03	79	0.03	79	0.02	88	0.02
Boshniakovich 1969		5	0.69	20	0.00	11	0.20	4	0.63	6	0.57	2	0.60
Brailowsky 1960		30	0.59	24	0.00	35	0.08	25	0.38	38	0.22	16	0.29
Bunin 1987		21	0.61	40	0.00	25	0.07	24	0.39	20	0.39	13	0.39
Bunin 1987b		22	0.61	59	0.00	24	0.08	23	0.40	21	0.40	11	0.40
Chiu 1999		49	0.52	30	0.00	39	0.09	39	0.18	54	0.04	39	0.08
Cohen 1997		88	0.15	91	0.00	88	0.03	71	0.03	86	0.02	89	0.02
Cortot 1951		37	0.57	82	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	67	0.04	49	0.06
Csalog 1996		86	0.35	76	0.00	86	0.04	60	0.04	84	0.03	77	0.03
Czerny 1949		16	0.63	14	0.02	16	0.09	14	0.50	44	0.08	26	0.20
Czerny 1990		34	0.57	79	0.00	50	0.04	65	0.04	80	0.03	83	0.03
Duchoud 2007		54	0.50	32	0.00	57	0.06	46	0.06	74	0.03	60	0.04
Ezaki 2006		19	0.61	42	0.00	31	0.09	34	0.32	83	0.03	37	0.10
Falvay 1989		68	0.46	77	0.00	80	0.02	85	0.02	52	0.06	72	0.03
Farrell 1958		42	0.55	54	0.00	47	0.05	47	0.05	69	0.04	55	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		76	0.42	72	0.00	84	0.03	75	0.03	74	0.03	79	0.03
Fliere 1977		6	0.69	28	0.00	9	0.15	11	0.58	46	0.07	25	0.20
Fou 1978		26	0.60	43	0.00	28	0.08	27	0.38	44	0.09	27	0.18
Francois 1956		61	0.49	88	0.00	69	0.03	67	0.03	65	0.04	85	0.03
Friedman 1923		85	0.35	89	0.00	75	0.03	72	0.03	46	0.08	52	0.05
Friedman 1923b		84	0.35	68	0.00	70	0.03	70	0.03	46	0.08	51	0.05
Friedman 1930		70	0.46	33	0.00	60	0.05	52	0.05	46	0.08	46	0.06
Garcia 2007		59	0.49	78	0.00	54	0.04	58	0.04	44	0.10	47	0.06
Garcia 2007b		80	0.40	64	0.00	59	0.04	57	0.04	72	0.04	68	0.04
Gierzod 1998		17	0.62	35	0.00	21	0.08	19	0.44	46	0.06	30	0.16
Gornostaeva 1994		46	0.54	87	0.00	64	0.04	61	0.04	70	0.03	82	0.03
Groot 1988		11	0.66	27	0.00	12	0.10	17	0.46	26	0.40	10	0.43
Harasiewicz 1955		13	0.65	5	0.07	4	0.16	6	0.60	25	0.35	9	0.46
Hatto 1993		65	0.47	7	0.05	18	0.08	31	0.33	28	0.20	20	0.26
Hatto 1997		56	0.50	45	0.00	20	0.08	36	0.31	35	0.14	24	0.21
Horowitz 1949		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Indjic 1988		60	0.49	63	0.00	19	0.08	32	0.32	31	0.19	21	0.25
Kapell 1951		43	0.55	67	0.00	48	0.04	56	0.04	70	0.04	56	0.04
Kissin 1993		14	0.65	11	0.02	14	0.14	13	0.51	31	0.19	15	0.31
Kushner 1989		39	0.56	84	0.00	53	0.04	59	0.04	86	0.03	74	0.03
Luisada 1991		40	0.56	58	0.00	43	0.05	42	0.10	58	0.04	44	0.06
Lushtak 2004		53	0.50	86	0.00	51	0.03	74	0.03	81	0.03	81	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		8	0.68	9	0.04	10	0.20	10	0.58	12	0.43	6	0.50
Magaloff 1978		36	0.57	41	0.00	46	0.04	55	0.04	49	0.07	50	0.05
Magin 1975		23	0.60	56	0.00	15	0.09	16	0.48	35	0.16	18	0.28
Michalowski 1933		73	0.43	48	0.00	42	0.05	43	0.10	74	0.04	45	0.06
Milkina 1970		15	0.64	26	0.00	17	0.10	18	0.45	42	0.12	22	0.23
Mohovich 1999		18	0.61	47	0.00	30	0.09	30	0.35	47	0.07	31	0.16
Moravec 1969		63	0.48	36	0.00	72	0.03	83	0.03	74	0.03	70	0.03
Morozova 2008		29	0.59	18	0.01	29	0.09	26	0.38	49	0.04	34	0.12
Neighaus 1950		4	0.70	15	0.02	6	0.13	8	0.59	30	0.27	12	0.40
Niedzielski 1931		41	0.56	17	0.01	23	0.07	28	0.37	18	0.35	14	0.36
Ohlsson 1999		35	0.57	71	0.00	37	0.09	35	0.32	74	0.04	35	0.11
Osinska 1989		24	0.60	21	0.00	41	0.06	41	0.14	69	0.04	40	0.07
Pachmann 1927		57	0.49	16	0.01	63	0.05	54	0.05	40	0.11	42	0.07
Paderewski 1930		69	0.46	25	0.00	81	0.02	89	0.02	76	0.03	87	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		33	0.58	51	0.00	38	0.07	38	0.20	69	0.04	38	0.09
Pierdomenico 2008		52	0.51	34	0.00	49	0.04	62	0.04	41	0.14	41	0.07
Poblocka 1999		31	0.59	37	0.00	26	0.08	21	0.41	51	0.06	28	0.16
Rabcewiczowa 1932		75	0.42	8	0.04	83	0.03	82	0.03	79	0.03	73	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		12	0.66	6	0.05	8	0.12	7	0.60	15	0.39	8	0.48
Rangell 2001		62	0.48	90	0.00	52	0.04	64	0.04	51	0.05	64	0.04
Richter 1976		10	0.67	4	0.09	3	0.18	9	0.59	4	0.58	3	0.58
Rosen 1989		51	0.52	49	0.00	61	0.05	50	0.05	64	0.04	62	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		55	0.50	39	0.00	58	0.05	48	0.05	62	0.04	61	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		79	0.41	74	0.00	74	0.03	77	0.03	52	0.04	76	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		74	0.43	53	0.00	68	0.03	78	0.03	51	0.05	67	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		77	0.42	75	0.00	78	0.02	86	0.02	78	0.03	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931d		72	0.44	80	0.00	71	0.03	69	0.03	51	0.05	66	0.04
Rossi 2007		87	0.24	60	0.00	87	0.03	81	0.03	76	0.04	71	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		82	0.38	70	0.00	85	0.04	63	0.04	58	0.05	54	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		81	0.39	81	0.00	82	0.02	87	0.02	59	0.05	84	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		66	0.47	73	0.00	77	0.03	76	0.03	54	0.05	59	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		7	0.69	3	0.12	5	0.16	3	0.64	10	0.50	4	0.57
Shebanova 2002		28	0.60	13	0.02	34	0.15	20	0.43	61	0.04	33	0.13
Smith 1975		58	0.49	83	0.00	66	0.03	80	0.03	88	0.02	86	0.02
Sokolov 2002		50	0.52	61	0.00	55	0.05	53	0.05	78	0.03	53	0.04
Sztompka 1959		48	0.53	44	0.00	62	0.05	51	0.05	80	0.04	58	0.04
Tomsic 1995		64	0.48	62	0.00	67	0.03	68	0.03	55	0.05	57	0.04
Uninsky 1932		25	0.60	12	0.02	33	0.10	29	0.35	36	0.21	19	0.27
Uninsky 1971		32	0.58	31	0.00	27	0.09	22	0.40	45	0.11	23	0.21
Wasowski 1980		9	0.68	10	0.02	13	0.12	12	0.54	4	0.44	7	0.49
Zak 1937		2	0.73	1	0.19	1	0.19	1	0.67	6	0.57	1	0.62
Zak 1951		3	0.72	2	0.15	2	0.32	2	0.65	9	0.49	5	0.56
Average		1	0.73	22	0.00	7	0.16	5	0.62	56	0.04	29	0.16
Random 1		91	-0.13	52	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	42	0.14	63	0.04
Random 2		89	-0.05	69	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	46	0.05	80	0.03
Random 3		90	-0.09	65	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	83	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).