Tomsic 1995

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		18	0.64	18	0.01	27	0.08	28	0.31	79	0.03	38	0.10
Anderszewski 2003		56	0.49	38	0.00	36	0.06	38	0.19	54	0.04	41	0.09
Ashkenazy 1981		50	0.52	51	0.00	53	0.04	70	0.04	48	0.05	67	0.04
Bacha 2000		51	0.51	62	0.00	56	0.04	57	0.04	57	0.05	52	0.04
Badura 1965		66	0.46	60	0.00	58	0.05	46	0.05	55	0.05	51	0.05
Barbosa 1983		54	0.50	77	0.00	19	0.09	21	0.39	29	0.23	15	0.30
Biret 1990		40	0.56	26	0.00	35	0.06	26	0.34	53	0.06	28	0.14
Blet 2003		24	0.62	47	0.00	34	0.06	27	0.31	47	0.06	27	0.14
Block 1995		29	0.60	54	0.00	33	0.05	32	0.27	25	0.27	18	0.27
Blumental 1952		81	0.35	30	0.00	60	0.05	47	0.05	67	0.03	65	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		33	0.58	31	0.00	52	0.04	68	0.04	58	0.05	66	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		39	0.57	67	0.00	55	0.05	48	0.05	60	0.05	49	0.05
Bunin 1987		53	0.50	16	0.01	63	0.04	62	0.04	66	0.04	69	0.04
Bunin 1987b		58	0.49	10	0.01	64	0.05	53	0.05	69	0.04	57	0.04
Chiu 1999		63	0.48	74	0.00	50	0.03	74	0.03	62	0.04	74	0.03
Cohen 1997		83	0.32	72	0.00	82	0.05	54	0.05	61	0.04	68	0.04
Cortot 1951		64	0.47	43	0.00	75	0.03	73	0.03	79	0.04	87	0.03
Csalog 1996		46	0.54	21	0.00	38	0.06	40	0.18	18	0.39	19	0.26
Czerny 1949		67	0.46	85	0.00	80	0.03	72	0.03	85	0.03	82	0.03
Czerny 1990		15	0.64	42	0.00	23	0.10	18	0.44	75	0.03	35	0.11
Duchoud 2007		60	0.49	49	0.00	59	0.05	50	0.05	79	0.03	64	0.04
Ezaki 2006		8	0.67	32	0.00	13	0.12	10	0.56	43	0.11	20	0.25
Falvay 1989		1	0.78	2	0.24	2	0.39	2	0.73	3	0.67	2	0.70
Farrell 1958		30	0.60	57	0.00	37	0.06	33	0.27	51	0.06	30	0.13
Ferenczy 1958		48	0.54	25	0.00	62	0.04	61	0.04	63	0.04	63	0.04
Fliere 1977		20	0.63	69	0.00	29	0.07	29	0.31	81	0.03	36	0.10
Fou 1978		9	0.67	45	0.00	9	0.14	9	0.60	27	0.30	8	0.42
Francois 1956		23	0.62	9	0.01	14	0.09	14	0.50	31	0.30	9	0.39
Friedman 1923		87	0.15	58	0.00	88	0.03	78	0.03	80	0.03	90	0.03
Friedman 1923b		88	0.15	86	0.00	87	0.03	80	0.03	79	0.04	85	0.03
Friedman 1930		86	0.26	50	0.00	85	0.03	79	0.03	72	0.04	79	0.03
Garcia 2007		75	0.42	84	0.00	77	0.03	75	0.03	87	0.03	83	0.03
Garcia 2007b		84	0.29	64	0.00	84	0.04	71	0.04	87	0.02	89	0.03
Gierzod 1998		36	0.57	55	0.00	44	0.06	42	0.14	75	0.03	48	0.06
Gornostaeva 1994		27	0.61	36	0.00	32	0.06	30	0.30	52	0.05	33	0.12
Groot 1988		3	0.76	4	0.05	3	0.38	4	0.68	9	0.54	3	0.61
Harasiewicz 1955		43	0.55	53	0.00	22	0.14	20	0.40	54	0.04	31	0.13
Hatto 1993		82	0.33	73	0.00	72	0.02	87	0.02	58	0.04	86	0.03
Hatto 1997		78	0.38	22	0.00	68	0.03	77	0.03	70	0.04	80	0.03
Horowitz 1949		62	0.48	23	0.00	61	0.05	55	0.05	68	0.03	58	0.04
Indjic 1988		80	0.36	79	0.00	69	0.03	82	0.03	61	0.05	61	0.04
Kapell 1951		38	0.57	48	0.00	49	0.04	59	0.04	48	0.05	56	0.04
Kissin 1993		6	0.70	11	0.01	7	0.10	12	0.54	32	0.18	14	0.31
Kushner 1989		14	0.65	19	0.00	16	0.08	15	0.50	44	0.11	22	0.23
Luisada 1991		35	0.57	56	0.00	20	0.08	31	0.28	68	0.04	34	0.11
Lushtak 2004		10	0.67	3	0.14	4	0.26	3	0.70	14	0.39	6	0.52
Malcuzynski 1961		26	0.61	29	0.00	43	0.07	43	0.14	65	0.04	45	0.07
Magaloff 1978		21	0.63	40	0.00	17	0.09	19	0.44	32	0.25	13	0.33
Magin 1975		52	0.51	65	0.00	57	0.05	52	0.05	82	0.03	55	0.04
Michalowski 1933		85	0.29	83	0.00	86	0.04	56	0.04	85	0.03	77	0.03
Milkina 1970		5	0.70	12	0.01	5	0.17	7	0.61	28	0.32	7	0.44
Mohovich 1999		2	0.78	1	0.34	1	0.33	1	0.76	4	0.69	1	0.72
Moravec 1969		59	0.49	70	0.00	76	0.04	69	0.04	72	0.03	72	0.03
Morozova 2008		49	0.54	20	0.00	40	0.06	36	0.20	51	0.04	42	0.09
Neighaus 1950		25	0.62	14	0.01	30	0.08	34	0.25	64	0.04	39	0.10
Niedzielski 1931		76	0.40	44	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	79	0.03	75	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		42	0.55	52	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.09	57	0.05	46	0.07
Osinska 1989		22	0.62	78	0.00	25	0.08	24	0.35	49	0.05	29	0.13
Pachmann 1927		31	0.60	17	0.01	42	0.06	41	0.18	18	0.35	21	0.25
Paderewski 1930		44	0.55	46	0.00	51	0.04	64	0.04	53	0.04	59	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		17	0.64	24	0.00	15	0.09	16	0.48	35	0.15	17	0.27
Pierdomenico 2008		32	0.58	68	0.00	24	0.10	25	0.35	22	0.40	11	0.37
Poblocka 1999		34	0.58	39	0.00	54	0.04	60	0.04	80	0.03	73	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		47	0.54	15	0.01	31	0.06	35	0.22	43	0.11	24	0.16
Rachmaninoff 1923		70	0.44	34	0.00	47	0.04	63	0.04	61	0.04	54	0.04
Rangell 2001		37	0.57	76	0.00	18	0.10	23	0.36	20	0.35	12	0.35
Richter 1976		61	0.49	59	0.00	70	0.03	84	0.03	64	0.04	76	0.03
Rosen 1989		28	0.61	28	0.00	26	0.09	22	0.39	67	0.04	32	0.12
Rosenthal 1930		72	0.43	81	0.00	71	0.03	85	0.03	76	0.03	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		74	0.42	80	0.00	67	0.05	51	0.05	45	0.06	50	0.05
Rosenthal 1931b		77	0.40	82	0.00	78	0.03	81	0.03	68	0.04	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		65	0.47	90	0.00	66	0.04	67	0.04	50	0.05	71	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		73	0.43	89	0.00	79	0.03	76	0.03	62	0.05	70	0.04
Rossi 2007		79	0.37	66	0.00	39	0.06	44	0.12	18	0.36	23	0.21
Rubinstein 1939		71	0.43	61	0.00	65	0.05	49	0.05	39	0.18	40	0.09
Rubinstein 1952		11	0.66	13	0.01	11	0.12	8	0.60	12	0.55	5	0.57
Rubinstein 1966		12	0.65	5	0.04	6	0.12	5	0.62	11	0.57	4	0.59
Schilhawsky 1960		68	0.45	87	0.00	81	0.04	65	0.04	67	0.04	62	0.04
Shebanova 2002		19	0.63	7	0.01	28	0.07	39	0.18	63	0.04	44	0.08
Smith 1975		7	0.67	8	0.01	10	0.14	13	0.53	27	0.27	10	0.38
Sokolov 2002		45	0.54	27	0.00	41	0.07	37	0.19	51	0.05	37	0.10
Sztompka 1959		41	0.56	6	0.02	48	0.04	66	0.04	68	0.05	60	0.04
Tomsic 1995		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Uninsky 1932		69	0.44	71	0.00	74	0.02	86	0.02	72	0.04	81	0.03
Uninsky 1971		57	0.49	37	0.00	73	0.02	89	0.02	59	0.06	78	0.03
Wasowski 1980		55	0.49	63	0.00	46	0.04	58	0.04	55	0.05	53	0.04
Zak 1937		16	0.64	35	0.00	21	0.09	17	0.45	56	0.06	25	0.16
Zak 1951		13	0.65	41	0.00	12	0.13	11	0.55	37	0.15	16	0.29
Average		4	0.72	33	0.00	8	0.11	6	0.62	62	0.04	26	0.16
Random 1		90	-0.09	75	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	31	0.27	47	0.07
Random 2		91	-0.25	88	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	90	0.01	91	0.01
Random 3		89	0.05	91	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	13	0.40	43	0.09

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).