Kapell 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		14	0.70	41	0.00	21	0.07	19	0.37	27	0.33	28	0.35
Anderszewski 2003		43	0.62	6	0.03	9	0.10	11	0.44	8	0.49	10	0.46
Ashkenazy 1981		41	0.63	35	0.00	17	0.08	15	0.40	18	0.44	17	0.42
Bacha 2000		66	0.53	83	0.00	59	0.04	75	0.04	30	0.22	58	0.09
Badura 1965		80	0.46	40	0.00	65	0.04	74	0.04	53	0.05	80	0.04
Barbosa 1983		77	0.47	36	0.00	55	0.04	66	0.04	21	0.29	53	0.11
Biret 1990		12	0.70	69	0.00	12	0.11	12	0.43	5	0.49	12	0.46
Blet 2003		18	0.69	43	0.00	32	0.09	25	0.30	8	0.46	25	0.37
Block 1995		79	0.47	42	0.00	74	0.03	79	0.03	56	0.04	85	0.03
Blumental 1952		69	0.52	24	0.00	20	0.09	32	0.27	3	0.47	27	0.36
Boshniakovich 1969		62	0.54	79	0.00	71	0.03	82	0.03	71	0.04	86	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		68	0.52	59	0.00	80	0.05	55	0.05	45	0.10	63	0.07
Bunin 1987		28	0.65	67	0.00	36	0.08	33	0.27	10	0.50	26	0.37
Bunin 1987b		29	0.65	87	0.00	35	0.08	30	0.28	9	0.51	20	0.38
Chiu 1999		84	0.41	68	0.00	69	0.04	68	0.04	49	0.06	69	0.05
Cohen 1997		87	0.31	89	0.00	83	0.03	84	0.03	33	0.15	65	0.07
Cortot 1951		5	0.75	37	0.00	6	0.15	7	0.47	2	0.69	3	0.57
Csalog 1996		26	0.65	18	0.01	47	0.04	64	0.04	3	0.56	43	0.15
Czerny 1949		13	0.70	21	0.01	10	0.10	6	0.47	9	0.53	7	0.50
Czerny 1990		7	0.73	16	0.01	11	0.10	8	0.47	13	0.50	9	0.48
Duchoud 2007		31	0.65	47	0.00	38	0.07	35	0.20	9	0.42	33	0.29
Ezaki 2006		24	0.67	19	0.01	28	0.06	21	0.35	23	0.33	29	0.34
Falvay 1989		67	0.52	50	0.00	81	0.05	47	0.05	64	0.05	70	0.05
Farrell 1958		53	0.57	53	0.00	60	0.04	76	0.04	46	0.07	71	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		3	0.78	4	0.09	3	0.31	5	0.50	1	0.73	1	0.60
Fliere 1977		8	0.72	34	0.00	29	0.07	24	0.30	39	0.18	35	0.23
Fou 1978		73	0.50	65	0.00	75	0.03	83	0.03	71	0.04	84	0.03
Francois 1956		25	0.66	29	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	28	0.31	41	0.16
Friedman 1923		86	0.36	81	0.00	67	0.05	51	0.05	24	0.31	52	0.12
Friedman 1923b		85	0.37	84	0.00	66	0.05	49	0.05	22	0.34	49	0.13
Friedman 1930		70	0.51	64	0.00	49	0.04	67	0.04	14	0.44	47	0.13
Garcia 2007		64	0.54	54	0.00	57	0.07	46	0.07	11	0.46	38	0.18
Garcia 2007b		81	0.45	58	0.00	56	0.05	54	0.05	12	0.31	51	0.12
Gierzod 1998		10	0.71	85	0.00	22	0.08	20	0.37	16	0.42	18	0.39
Gornostaeva 1994		47	0.60	55	0.00	72	0.04	62	0.04	51	0.05	81	0.04
Groot 1988		45	0.61	66	0.00	58	0.04	60	0.04	44	0.10	68	0.06
Harasiewicz 1955		58	0.55	11	0.01	13	0.08	14	0.40	20	0.37	22	0.38
Hatto 1993		71	0.51	73	0.00	34	0.07	39	0.15	19	0.29	36	0.21
Hatto 1997		55	0.57	57	0.00	16	0.07	28	0.28	14	0.40	30	0.33
Horowitz 1949		60	0.55	70	0.00	70	0.04	70	0.04	56	0.04	78	0.04
Indjic 1988		65	0.53	82	0.00	33	0.07	37	0.16	17	0.36	34	0.24
Kapell 1951		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Kissin 1993		50	0.58	78	0.00	73	0.04	58	0.04	64	0.04	79	0.04
Kushner 1989		21	0.68	62	0.00	41	0.06	36	0.17	38	0.17	39	0.17
Luisada 1991		49	0.58	52	0.00	50	0.04	63	0.04	40	0.13	62	0.07
Lushtak 2004		42	0.63	15	0.01	8	0.10	9	0.46	5	0.46	11	0.46
Malcuzynski 1961		37	0.64	49	0.00	54	0.05	52	0.05	40	0.12	61	0.08
Magaloff 1978		59	0.55	80	0.00	79	0.04	61	0.04	74	0.04	74	0.04
Magin 1975		61	0.55	56	0.00	68	0.03	78	0.03	60	0.04	83	0.03
Michalowski 1933		44	0.62	77	0.00	18	0.07	13	0.41	11	0.48	14	0.44
Milkina 1970		40	0.63	17	0.01	63	0.04	73	0.04	70	0.04	76	0.04
Mohovich 1999		19	0.69	20	0.01	27	0.06	27	0.28	25	0.36	32	0.32
Moravec 1969		33	0.64	8	0.02	53	0.05	53	0.05	7	0.50	40	0.16
Morozova 2008		56	0.56	71	0.00	51	0.04	72	0.04	45	0.07	73	0.05
Neighaus 1950		39	0.63	46	0.00	37	0.07	34	0.20	60	0.05	57	0.10
Niedzielski 1931		34	0.64	30	0.00	48	0.04	59	0.04	8	0.47	44	0.14
Ohlsson 1999		22	0.68	44	0.00	23	0.07	22	0.34	16	0.40	24	0.37
Osinska 1989		17	0.69	33	0.00	31	0.06	31	0.28	22	0.37	31	0.32
Pachmann 1927		82	0.44	74	0.00	88	0.04	71	0.04	46	0.06	72	0.05
Paderewski 1930		16	0.70	13	0.01	30	0.06	29	0.28	3	0.49	23	0.37
Perlemuter 1992		48	0.59	61	0.00	39	0.07	38	0.15	25	0.27	37	0.20
Pierdomenico 2008		76	0.48	60	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	60	0.05	75	0.04
Poblocka 1999		2	0.80	2	0.13	2	0.21	2	0.53	2	0.58	4	0.55
Rabcewiczowa 1932		11	0.71	27	0.00	14	0.08	16	0.39	4	0.58	8	0.48
Rachmaninoff 1923		51	0.57	26	0.00	52	0.04	57	0.04	37	0.16	60	0.08
Rangell 2001		57	0.56	7	0.02	64	0.04	69	0.04	50	0.05	82	0.04
Richter 1976		52	0.57	32	0.00	62	0.05	56	0.05	16	0.43	42	0.15
Rosen 1989		32	0.65	25	0.00	46	0.05	50	0.05	45	0.09	64	0.07
Rosenthal 1930		35	0.64	45	0.00	61	0.04	65	0.04	20	0.36	50	0.12
Rosenthal 1931		74	0.50	88	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	39	0.14	67	0.06
Rosenthal 1931b		78	0.47	76	0.00	87	0.03	81	0.03	56	0.04	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		46	0.60	48	0.00	76	0.04	77	0.04	30	0.28	54	0.11
Rosenthal 1931d		75	0.49	91	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	52	0.05	88	0.03
Rossi 2007		88	0.29	63	0.00	82	0.03	86	0.03	31	0.21	59	0.08
Rubinstein 1939		83	0.42	10	0.01	85	0.02	88	0.02	42	0.16	66	0.06
Rubinstein 1952		72	0.51	5	0.07	15	0.08	42	0.11	44	0.11	55	0.11
Rubinstein 1966		63	0.54	23	0.00	44	0.04	44	0.08	45	0.12	56	0.10
Schilhawsky 1960		6	0.74	38	0.00	5	0.13	4	0.51	8	0.51	6	0.51
Shebanova 2002		30	0.65	39	0.00	43	0.06	41	0.13	43	0.13	48	0.13
Smith 1975		20	0.68	12	0.01	26	0.07	17	0.37	11	0.50	15	0.43
Sokolov 2002		15	0.70	14	0.01	24	0.07	18	0.37	8	0.48	16	0.42
Sztompka 1959		4	0.75	3	0.10	4	0.28	3	0.51	5	0.56	5	0.53
Tomsic 1995		54	0.57	28	0.00	77	0.05	48	0.05	59	0.04	77	0.04
Uninsky 1932		38	0.64	31	0.00	19	0.07	23	0.31	17	0.47	21	0.38
Uninsky 1971		9	0.72	22	0.00	7	0.16	10	0.44	13	0.47	13	0.45
Wasowski 1980		23	0.67	9	0.01	25	0.05	26	0.29	2	0.51	19	0.38
Zak 1937		27	0.65	72	0.00	42	0.05	43	0.11	38	0.17	45	0.14
Zak 1951		36	0.64	51	0.00	40	0.06	40	0.14	40	0.13	46	0.13
Average		1	0.81	1	0.33	1	0.33	1	0.72	14	0.47	2	0.58
Random 1		91	-0.22	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	89	0.01	91	0.01
Random 2		90	-0.12	86	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	66	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.05	75	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	54	0.05	87	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).