Rossi 2007

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	0.45	27	0.01	28	0.06	28	0.24	75	0.03	37	0.08
Anderszewski 2003		18	0.48	35	0.00	50	0.05	56	0.05	83	0.03	61	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		55	0.34	32	0.00	61	0.06	51	0.06	72	0.03	65	0.04
Bacha 2000		56	0.34	34	0.00	47	0.06	55	0.06	53	0.06	43	0.06
Badura 1965		36	0.42	79	0.00	76	0.04	70	0.04	89	0.02	81	0.03
Barbosa 1983		47	0.39	17	0.01	19	0.06	27	0.26	82	0.03	30	0.09
Biret 1990		22	0.46	42	0.00	17	0.09	8	0.48	63	0.05	13	0.15
Blet 2003		48	0.38	86	0.00	37	0.06	38	0.17	61	0.04	36	0.08
Block 1995		21	0.47	29	0.00	29	0.05	30	0.23	35	0.17	10	0.20
Blumental 1952		27	0.45	52	0.00	35	0.05	29	0.23	82	0.02	41	0.07
Boshniakovich 1969		31	0.44	26	0.01	59	0.04	65	0.04	84	0.02	82	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		11	0.50	24	0.01	30	0.06	39	0.15	43	0.13	14	0.14
Bunin 1987		84	0.17	74	0.00	88	0.03	85	0.03	86	0.02	89	0.02
Bunin 1987b		87	0.15	80	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	86	0.02	85	0.02
Chiu 1999		16	0.48	66	0.00	60	0.04	67	0.04	85	0.03	69	0.03
Cohen 1997		76	0.25	49	0.00	65	0.03	81	0.03	77	0.03	83	0.03
Cortot 1951		38	0.41	2	0.13	2	0.12	23	0.29	32	0.22	5	0.25
Csalog 1996		88	0.13	62	0.00	66	0.04	73	0.04	52	0.05	60	0.04
Czerny 1949		26	0.45	21	0.01	40	0.06	41	0.13	84	0.03	47	0.06
Czerny 1990		4	0.58	3	0.11	3	0.13	1	0.66	57	0.04	12	0.16
Duchoud 2007		78	0.25	37	0.00	71	0.04	74	0.04	81	0.03	79	0.03
Ezaki 2006		1	0.59	9	0.04	6	0.11	4	0.58	84	0.03	18	0.13
Falvay 1989		9	0.50	10	0.04	10	0.10	6	0.49	35	0.28	1	0.37
Farrell 1958		39	0.41	56	0.00	26	0.06	21	0.31	64	0.04	24	0.11
Ferenczy 1958		51	0.37	72	0.00	54	0.05	57	0.05	82	0.03	63	0.04
Fliere 1977		32	0.43	41	0.00	53	0.06	54	0.06	59	0.04	49	0.05
Fou 1978		30	0.44	77	0.00	31	0.07	36	0.18	83	0.03	40	0.07
Francois 1956		24	0.46	6	0.05	7	0.10	14	0.39	53	0.05	17	0.14
Friedman 1923		71	0.28	81	0.00	70	0.07	46	0.07	66	0.05	48	0.06
Friedman 1923b		72	0.28	64	0.00	69	0.04	61	0.04	74	0.04	66	0.04
Friedman 1930		44	0.40	67	0.00	62	0.04	71	0.04	59	0.05	62	0.04
Garcia 2007		43	0.40	59	0.00	55	0.05	59	0.05	60	0.04	64	0.04
Garcia 2007b		49	0.38	60	0.00	56	0.06	53	0.06	69	0.04	54	0.05
Gierzod 1998		58	0.33	65	0.00	64	0.03	79	0.03	68	0.04	78	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		7	0.52	14	0.01	13	0.11	5	0.49	42	0.11	8	0.23
Groot 1988		42	0.40	47	0.00	20	0.06	25	0.28	85	0.03	32	0.09
Harasiewicz 1955		3	0.59	7	0.05	14	0.08	32	0.21	79	0.03	38	0.08
Hatto 1993		86	0.16	76	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	88	0.02	90	0.02
Hatto 1997		83	0.18	85	0.00	81	0.04	77	0.04	86	0.03	75	0.03
Horowitz 1949		79	0.24	57	0.00	85	0.04	76	0.04	81	0.03	70	0.03
Indjic 1988		85	0.16	90	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	89	0.02	88	0.02
Kapell 1951		70	0.29	71	0.00	33	0.05	31	0.21	86	0.03	34	0.08
Kissin 1993		25	0.46	43	0.00	42	0.04	43	0.10	73	0.03	50	0.05
Kushner 1989		14	0.49	73	0.00	25	0.08	19	0.32	83	0.03	28	0.10
Luisada 1991		10	0.50	51	0.00	27	0.08	24	0.28	59	0.04	22	0.11
Lushtak 2004		37	0.41	46	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.09	72	0.03	51	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		40	0.40	13	0.01	24	0.06	22	0.30	61	0.04	25	0.11
Magaloff 1978		17	0.48	5	0.06	8	0.09	10	0.45	37	0.18	2	0.28
Magin 1975		41	0.40	31	0.00	43	0.05	44	0.10	65	0.04	45	0.06
Michalowski 1933		54	0.34	25	0.01	73	0.03	78	0.03	84	0.03	72	0.03
Milkina 1970		35	0.42	18	0.01	16	0.08	16	0.37	62	0.05	15	0.14
Mohovich 1999		20	0.47	23	0.01	12	0.10	7	0.48	81	0.03	21	0.12
Moravec 1969		46	0.39	61	0.00	15	0.07	13	0.39	44	0.17	3	0.26
Morozova 2008		15	0.49	78	0.00	39	0.06	37	0.17	83	0.02	46	0.06
Neighaus 1950		53	0.35	87	0.00	63	0.04	64	0.04	84	0.03	84	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		57	0.33	12	0.02	48	0.06	52	0.06	80	0.03	56	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		66	0.29	44	0.00	75	0.04	69	0.04	84	0.03	71	0.03
Osinska 1989		2	0.59	8	0.04	5	0.17	2	0.61	55	0.05	11	0.17
Pachmann 1927		81	0.21	45	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	89	0.02	87	0.02
Paderewski 1930		33	0.43	40	0.00	51	0.06	50	0.06	82	0.03	59	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		6	0.56	33	0.00	22	0.09	17	0.37	86	0.03	23	0.11
Pierdomenico 2008		19	0.47	48	0.00	18	0.08	20	0.31	37	0.17	6	0.23
Poblocka 1999		80	0.24	82	0.00	79	0.04	68	0.04	76	0.03	68	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		13	0.50	4	0.10	4	0.15	11	0.41	40	0.13	7	0.23
Rachmaninoff 1923		12	0.50	28	0.01	21	0.07	15	0.37	67	0.04	20	0.12
Rangell 2001		75	0.25	83	0.00	57	0.06	49	0.06	63	0.03	67	0.04
Richter 1976		77	0.25	89	0.00	84	0.03	86	0.03	88	0.02	86	0.02
Rosen 1989		23	0.46	11	0.02	9	0.11	9	0.47	57	0.04	16	0.14
Rosenthal 1930		64	0.29	70	0.00	58	0.04	62	0.04	79	0.03	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		60	0.33	84	0.00	46	0.05	58	0.05	37	0.16	31	0.09
Rosenthal 1931b		69	0.29	54	0.00	52	0.06	48	0.06	39	0.10	39	0.08
Rosenthal 1931c		65	0.29	30	0.00	41	0.06	40	0.15	48	0.05	33	0.09
Rosenthal 1931d		59	0.33	20	0.01	49	0.06	47	0.06	30	0.21	27	0.11
Rossi 2007		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rubinstein 1939		82	0.20	75	0.00	78	0.04	63	0.04	67	0.04	55	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		73	0.28	69	0.00	44	0.05	42	0.11	75	0.04	42	0.07
Rubinstein 1966		62	0.31	36	0.00	34	0.06	26	0.26	75	0.04	29	0.10
Schilhawsky 1960		68	0.29	15	0.01	72	0.04	72	0.04	85	0.03	74	0.03
Shebanova 2002		63	0.31	55	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	87	0.03	77	0.03
Smith 1975		5	0.57	1	0.14	1	0.14	3	0.59	41	0.11	4	0.25
Sokolov 2002		52	0.36	19	0.01	38	0.06	35	0.18	87	0.02	44	0.06
Sztompka 1959		34	0.42	22	0.01	36	0.05	34	0.20	85	0.03	35	0.08
Tomsic 1995		50	0.37	16	0.01	11	0.10	18	0.36	44	0.12	9	0.21
Uninsky 1932		45	0.39	68	0.00	67	0.03	82	0.03	79	0.03	76	0.03
Uninsky 1971		74	0.26	88	0.00	80	0.05	60	0.05	86	0.02	73	0.03
Wasowski 1980		29	0.44	63	0.00	32	0.05	33	0.20	45	0.09	19	0.13
Zak 1937		67	0.29	58	0.00	77	0.04	66	0.04	74	0.04	57	0.04
Zak 1951		61	0.32	39	0.00	68	0.04	75	0.04	72	0.04	58	0.04
Average		8	0.51	53	0.00	23	0.06	12	0.40	82	0.03	26	0.11
Random 1		89	-0.12	38	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	40	0.15	52	0.05
Random 2		91	-0.20	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01
Random 3		90	-0.14	50	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	38	0.14	53	0.05

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).