Rangell 2001

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		40	0.49	16	0.01	41	0.08	34	0.22	47	0.05	39	0.10
Anderszewski 2003		45	0.48	70	0.00	37	0.06	38	0.18	67	0.03	48	0.07
Ashkenazy 1981		35	0.50	76	0.00	33	0.07	26	0.29	81	0.03	41	0.09
Bacha 2000		26	0.54	55	0.00	32	0.07	27	0.28	33	0.19	16	0.23
Badura 1965		66	0.38	62	0.00	40	0.06	41	0.16	75	0.03	49	0.07
Barbosa 1983		79	0.27	5	0.04	8	0.11	30	0.26	73	0.04	38	0.10
Biret 1990		11	0.60	54	0.00	30	0.07	13	0.43	49	0.06	23	0.16
Blet 2003		58	0.43	10	0.03	22	0.07	33	0.22	87	0.03	46	0.08
Block 1995		18	0.57	2	0.14	2	0.20	7	0.46	6	0.45	2	0.45
Blumental 1952		84	0.25	72	0.00	74	0.03	75	0.03	60	0.04	82	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		12	0.59	6	0.04	14	0.08	9	0.45	26	0.28	7	0.35
Brailowsky 1960		29	0.54	83	0.00	29	0.07	31	0.26	31	0.28	12	0.27
Bunin 1987		71	0.36	48	0.00	83	0.02	88	0.02	63	0.04	83	0.03
Bunin 1987b		72	0.36	81	0.00	82	0.03	87	0.03	61	0.04	73	0.03
Chiu 1999		68	0.37	22	0.01	23	0.07	18	0.38	41	0.16	15	0.25
Cohen 1997		82	0.25	36	0.00	64	0.03	73	0.03	42	0.08	54	0.05
Cortot 1951		55	0.44	46	0.00	76	0.03	76	0.03	64	0.05	67	0.04
Csalog 1996		38	0.50	86	0.00	48	0.05	49	0.05	41	0.14	45	0.08
Czerny 1949		75	0.35	74	0.00	75	0.03	70	0.03	80	0.03	79	0.03
Czerny 1990		42	0.49	37	0.00	54	0.04	56	0.04	83	0.03	85	0.03
Duchoud 2007		15	0.58	3	0.10	3	0.10	10	0.44	43	0.12	18	0.23
Ezaki 2006		27	0.54	4	0.05	6	0.08	11	0.44	73	0.03	32	0.11
Falvay 1989		34	0.52	28	0.00	34	0.06	39	0.17	40	0.18	21	0.17
Farrell 1958		46	0.48	50	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.09	37	0.13	33	0.11
Ferenczy 1958		69	0.36	68	0.00	86	0.04	57	0.04	68	0.04	64	0.04
Fliere 1977		13	0.59	8	0.04	10	0.10	8	0.46	66	0.04	26	0.14
Fou 1978		31	0.54	11	0.03	4	0.09	5	0.50	34	0.19	10	0.31
Francois 1956		50	0.47	75	0.00	58	0.03	64	0.03	69	0.03	87	0.03
Friedman 1923		87	0.14	61	0.00	88	0.03	80	0.03	81	0.03	89	0.03
Friedman 1923b		88	0.14	49	0.00	87	0.03	83	0.03	81	0.03	84	0.03
Friedman 1930		86	0.23	47	0.00	85	0.03	65	0.03	77	0.04	78	0.03
Garcia 2007		62	0.39	89	0.00	69	0.03	79	0.03	79	0.03	80	0.03
Garcia 2007b		77	0.33	69	0.00	77	0.03	84	0.03	70	0.04	88	0.03
Gierzod 1998		32	0.53	65	0.00	49	0.05	52	0.05	58	0.04	66	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		5	0.64	64	0.00	16	0.08	19	0.37	28	0.29	8	0.33
Groot 1988		17	0.58	14	0.02	9	0.08	17	0.39	35	0.26	9	0.32
Harasiewicz 1955		59	0.42	20	0.01	17	0.10	22	0.34	60	0.04	31	0.12
Hatto 1993		85	0.24	45	0.00	56	0.04	55	0.04	79	0.03	86	0.03
Hatto 1997		80	0.26	32	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.10	67	0.04	50	0.06
Horowitz 1949		44	0.48	30	0.00	52	0.05	51	0.05	64	0.04	59	0.04
Indjic 1988		83	0.25	77	0.00	55	0.04	58	0.04	72	0.04	63	0.04
Kapell 1951		21	0.56	12	0.02	50	0.05	50	0.05	69	0.04	58	0.04
Kissin 1993		24	0.56	41	0.00	25	0.05	24	0.33	57	0.05	28	0.13
Kushner 1989		8	0.63	9	0.04	5	0.09	3	0.53	33	0.24	5	0.36
Luisada 1991		52	0.46	56	0.00	42	0.05	42	0.13	66	0.04	47	0.07
Lushtak 2004		70	0.36	25	0.01	43	0.05	43	0.10	83	0.03	52	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		3	0.65	27	0.01	18	0.12	25	0.33	20	0.29	11	0.31
Magaloff 1978		14	0.58	35	0.00	28	0.05	29	0.27	35	0.18	19	0.22
Magin 1975		23	0.56	52	0.00	24	0.06	21	0.34	46	0.06	27	0.14
Michalowski 1933		65	0.38	60	0.00	71	0.03	74	0.03	70	0.04	74	0.03
Milkina 1970		1	0.70	1	0.19	1	0.19	2	0.55	17	0.39	1	0.46
Mohovich 1999		4	0.64	19	0.01	7	0.09	4	0.51	56	0.05	22	0.16
Moravec 1969		56	0.44	51	0.00	73	0.03	86	0.03	56	0.04	68	0.03
Morozova 2008		73	0.36	31	0.00	62	0.03	81	0.03	79	0.03	77	0.03
Neighaus 1950		16	0.58	15	0.02	31	0.10	23	0.34	66	0.04	30	0.12
Niedzielski 1931		63	0.39	33	0.00	79	0.03	72	0.03	76	0.03	72	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		10	0.60	40	0.00	12	0.08	12	0.44	48	0.05	24	0.15
Osinska 1989		22	0.56	17	0.01	21	0.07	15	0.39	37	0.17	14	0.26
Pachmann 1927		57	0.43	59	0.00	60	0.03	71	0.03	47	0.06	61	0.04
Paderewski 1930		19	0.57	13	0.02	19	0.08	32	0.26	27	0.21	17	0.23
Perlemuter 1992		64	0.39	66	0.00	66	0.04	54	0.04	87	0.02	69	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		6	0.63	44	0.00	11	0.08	16	0.39	8	0.47	3	0.43
Poblocka 1999		25	0.56	38	0.00	36	0.06	40	0.17	63	0.04	43	0.08
Rabcewiczowa 1932		53	0.45	58	0.00	72	0.03	69	0.03	86	0.02	90	0.02
Rachmaninoff 1923		74	0.36	90	0.00	65	0.03	78	0.03	86	0.03	71	0.03
Rangell 2001		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Richter 1976		61	0.40	71	0.00	67	0.04	62	0.04	62	0.04	60	0.04
Rosen 1989		2	0.65	18	0.01	15	0.08	6	0.49	25	0.29	4	0.38
Rosenthal 1930		54	0.45	57	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	60	0.04	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		39	0.50	84	0.00	61	0.04	60	0.04	35	0.18	44	0.08
Rosenthal 1931b		37	0.50	67	0.00	53	0.04	53	0.04	33	0.20	42	0.09
Rosenthal 1931c		36	0.50	91	0.00	70	0.03	85	0.03	45	0.07	55	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		30	0.54	63	0.00	51	0.05	46	0.05	28	0.24	34	0.11
Rossi 2007		81	0.25	82	0.00	68	0.03	63	0.03	49	0.06	56	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		78	0.30	42	0.00	63	0.03	77	0.03	47	0.06	57	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		47	0.48	24	0.01	47	0.05	47	0.05	38	0.24	35	0.11
Rubinstein 1966		48	0.48	26	0.01	39	0.07	36	0.19	41	0.17	20	0.18
Schilhawsky 1960		76	0.35	85	0.00	84	0.04	59	0.04	82	0.03	76	0.03
Shebanova 2002		9	0.60	23	0.01	20	0.08	14	0.42	36	0.18	13	0.27
Smith 1975		28	0.54	73	0.00	27	0.06	28	0.28	47	0.05	29	0.12
Sokolov 2002		33	0.53	39	0.00	59	0.03	66	0.03	81	0.03	70	0.03
Sztompka 1959		41	0.49	34	0.00	57	0.04	61	0.04	69	0.04	62	0.04
Tomsic 1995		20	0.57	79	0.00	26	0.06	20	0.35	23	0.36	6	0.35
Uninsky 1932		67	0.37	78	0.00	81	0.03	67	0.03	63	0.05	65	0.04
Uninsky 1971		60	0.42	43	0.00	80	0.03	68	0.03	76	0.04	75	0.03
Wasowski 1980		49	0.47	21	0.01	46	0.05	48	0.05	61	0.05	51	0.05
Zak 1937		43	0.49	87	0.00	38	0.05	37	0.19	61	0.05	36	0.10
Zak 1951		51	0.46	29	0.00	35	0.06	35	0.21	67	0.05	37	0.10
Average		7	0.63	7	0.04	13	0.09	1	0.56	68	0.04	25	0.15
Random 1		91	-0.11	88	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	32	0.26	53	0.05
Random 2		90	-0.06	53	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	54	0.04	91	0.02
Random 3		89	0.10	80	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	4	0.52	40	0.10

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).