Sztompka 1959

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		3	0.78	20	0.01	4	0.19	4	0.57	9	0.51	8	0.54
Anderszewski 2003		42	0.63	40	0.00	49	0.08	47	0.08	27	0.21	47	0.13
Ashkenazy 1981		17	0.71	10	0.02	17	0.13	16	0.44	19	0.44	19	0.44
Bacha 2000		75	0.49	64	0.00	77	0.04	76	0.04	70	0.04	69	0.04
Badura 1965		37	0.64	25	0.00	28	0.06	35	0.25	14	0.40	30	0.32
Barbosa 1983		74	0.50	32	0.00	59	0.04	74	0.04	45	0.10	61	0.06
Biret 1990		31	0.66	42	0.00	41	0.07	42	0.16	40	0.16	44	0.16
Blet 2003		20	0.71	59	0.00	22	0.06	18	0.41	9	0.46	20	0.43
Block 1995		72	0.51	65	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.16	42	0.11	48	0.13
Blumental 1952		54	0.57	13	0.02	11	0.11	29	0.29	5	0.41	28	0.34
Boshniakovich 1969		39	0.64	68	0.00	53	0.06	60	0.06	49	0.06	64	0.06
Brailowsky 1960		78	0.47	61	0.00	83	0.03	84	0.03	81	0.03	84	0.03
Bunin 1987		50	0.59	38	0.00	55	0.09	46	0.09	23	0.35	43	0.18
Bunin 1987b		52	0.58	90	0.00	54	0.06	55	0.06	26	0.36	46	0.15
Chiu 1999		79	0.45	81	0.00	78	0.05	62	0.05	69	0.03	70	0.04
Cohen 1997		88	0.27	79	0.00	88	0.04	78	0.04	55	0.04	80	0.04
Cortot 1951		5	0.77	3	0.10	6	0.16	7	0.54	1	0.72	1	0.62
Csalog 1996		84	0.36	88	0.00	81	0.04	82	0.04	80	0.03	85	0.03
Czerny 1949		2	0.79	1	0.29	1	0.29	2	0.62	6	0.59	2	0.60
Czerny 1990		4	0.77	6	0.03	8	0.19	3	0.62	7	0.55	5	0.58
Duchoud 2007		32	0.66	21	0.01	34	0.05	25	0.32	6	0.45	25	0.38
Ezaki 2006		14	0.72	80	0.00	33	0.10	32	0.28	35	0.20	34	0.24
Falvay 1989		77	0.48	16	0.01	79	0.04	77	0.04	68	0.04	71	0.04
Farrell 1958		36	0.65	27	0.00	46	0.07	51	0.07	18	0.31	45	0.15
Ferenczy 1958		23	0.69	58	0.00	16	0.10	19	0.40	5	0.50	17	0.45
Fliere 1977		11	0.73	24	0.00	32	0.07	23	0.34	42	0.13	36	0.21
Fou 1978		56	0.56	71	0.00	66	0.05	67	0.05	84	0.03	74	0.04
Francois 1956		29	0.67	51	0.00	31	0.07	27	0.31	14	0.45	27	0.37
Friedman 1923		55	0.56	57	0.00	26	0.07	31	0.28	5	0.59	23	0.41
Friedman 1923b		58	0.56	47	0.00	25	0.06	30	0.28	4	0.59	22	0.41
Friedman 1930		38	0.64	28	0.00	24	0.08	17	0.42	6	0.52	13	0.47
Garcia 2007		48	0.59	87	0.00	48	0.07	49	0.07	7	0.52	40	0.19
Garcia 2007b		66	0.54	83	0.00	29	0.05	39	0.21	3	0.55	29	0.34
Gierzod 1998		10	0.74	44	0.00	14	0.15	12	0.51	13	0.45	12	0.48
Gornostaeva 1994		34	0.66	31	0.00	43	0.05	41	0.18	30	0.27	35	0.22
Groot 1988		46	0.60	5	0.04	45	0.06	45	0.12	46	0.07	53	0.09
Harasiewicz 1955		45	0.62	54	0.00	38	0.06	37	0.23	47	0.05	52	0.11
Hatto 1993		73	0.50	86	0.00	57	0.05	66	0.05	66	0.04	82	0.04
Hatto 1997		60	0.55	73	0.00	52	0.06	58	0.06	43	0.10	55	0.08
Horowitz 1949		67	0.53	53	0.00	73	0.04	80	0.04	51	0.05	76	0.04
Indjic 1988		69	0.52	84	0.00	56	0.06	57	0.06	73	0.04	68	0.05
Kapell 1951		7	0.75	2	0.12	5	0.20	5	0.56	3	0.51	9	0.53
Kissin 1993		44	0.62	49	0.00	61	0.04	73	0.04	68	0.04	78	0.04
Kushner 1989		18	0.71	30	0.00	36	0.06	28	0.30	29	0.29	31	0.29
Luisada 1991		47	0.60	50	0.00	63	0.07	50	0.07	55	0.05	58	0.06
Lushtak 2004		33	0.66	56	0.00	27	0.06	33	0.27	40	0.13	41	0.19
Malcuzynski 1961		40	0.63	29	0.00	47	0.06	56	0.06	29	0.22	51	0.11
Magaloff 1978		62	0.55	33	0.00	71	0.06	61	0.06	69	0.04	66	0.05
Magin 1975		61	0.55	52	0.00	65	0.04	71	0.04	62	0.04	73	0.04
Michalowski 1933		19	0.71	17	0.01	3	0.16	6	0.56	1	0.63	3	0.59
Milkina 1970		49	0.59	8	0.02	51	0.06	54	0.06	75	0.04	67	0.05
Mohovich 1999		27	0.68	11	0.02	40	0.09	36	0.24	38	0.18	38	0.21
Moravec 1969		70	0.52	48	0.00	68	0.04	70	0.04	48	0.06	65	0.05
Morozova 2008		30	0.67	22	0.01	37	0.09	26	0.32	22	0.26	32	0.29
Neighaus 1950		6	0.76	26	0.00	13	0.12	11	0.52	13	0.43	14	0.47
Niedzielski 1931		64	0.55	41	0.00	58	0.06	53	0.06	32	0.21	50	0.11
Ohlsson 1999		21	0.70	69	0.00	35	0.05	34	0.27	28	0.26	33	0.26
Osinska 1989		12	0.73	60	0.00	18	0.08	15	0.46	14	0.44	15	0.45
Pachmann 1927		80	0.42	63	0.00	82	0.03	88	0.03	59	0.05	77	0.04
Paderewski 1930		25	0.68	19	0.01	19	0.07	24	0.33	2	0.51	21	0.41
Perlemuter 1992		26	0.68	72	0.00	30	0.06	21	0.40	15	0.40	24	0.40
Pierdomenico 2008		68	0.53	46	0.00	70	0.05	63	0.05	47	0.09	56	0.07
Poblocka 1999		9	0.74	39	0.00	9	0.14	14	0.48	9	0.49	11	0.48
Rabcewiczowa 1932		8	0.74	15	0.02	12	0.10	9	0.54	3	0.61	6	0.57
Rachmaninoff 1923		43	0.62	23	0.01	42	0.05	40	0.19	32	0.18	42	0.18
Rangell 2001		76	0.49	35	0.00	75	0.04	69	0.04	61	0.04	81	0.04
Richter 1976		63	0.55	62	0.00	69	0.05	64	0.05	46	0.08	60	0.06
Rosen 1989		35	0.66	82	0.00	50	0.08	48	0.08	55	0.04	63	0.06
Rosenthal 1930		57	0.56	77	0.00	64	0.06	52	0.06	30	0.24	49	0.12
Rosenthal 1931		82	0.38	78	0.00	80	0.04	79	0.04	62	0.04	79	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		83	0.36	74	0.00	84	0.04	81	0.04	78	0.03	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		71	0.52	75	0.00	72	0.04	75	0.04	66	0.03	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		85	0.35	43	0.00	85	0.03	87	0.03	77	0.03	87	0.03
Rossi 2007		81	0.42	36	0.00	76	0.03	85	0.03	34	0.20	54	0.08
Rubinstein 1939		87	0.34	34	0.00	87	0.03	83	0.03	54	0.05	72	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		86	0.34	66	0.00	86	0.03	86	0.03	51	0.06	83	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		65	0.54	70	0.00	74	0.05	65	0.05	46	0.07	62	0.06
Schilhawsky 1960		24	0.69	85	0.00	23	0.06	22	0.36	26	0.39	26	0.37
Shebanova 2002		28	0.67	7	0.03	20	0.06	38	0.22	34	0.20	37	0.21
Smith 1975		15	0.72	18	0.01	15	0.10	10	0.52	4	0.56	7	0.54
Sokolov 2002		16	0.71	12	0.02	21	0.06	20	0.40	6	0.49	18	0.44
Sztompka 1959		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Tomsic 1995		59	0.56	14	0.02	67	0.05	68	0.05	66	0.04	75	0.04
Uninsky 1932		13	0.73	9	0.02	7	0.20	8	0.54	2	0.65	4	0.59
Uninsky 1971		22	0.70	76	0.00	10	0.13	13	0.50	10	0.48	10	0.49
Wasowski 1980		41	0.63	37	0.00	39	0.07	44	0.13	21	0.27	39	0.19
Zak 1937		51	0.58	55	0.00	62	0.06	59	0.06	45	0.08	57	0.07
Zak 1951		53	0.58	45	0.00	60	0.04	72	0.04	45	0.09	59	0.06
Average		1	0.82	4	0.10	2	0.15	1	0.72	31	0.28	16	0.45
Random 1		91	-0.20	89	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	74	0.03	91	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.10	91	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	76	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.05	67	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	53	0.05	86	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).