Uninsky 1971

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		6	0.72	9	0.01	10	0.13	6	0.55	12	0.47	8	0.51
Anderszewski 2003		53	0.52	21	0.00	38	0.08	39	0.17	36	0.13	36	0.15
Ashkenazy 1981		43	0.57	86	0.00	27	0.09	30	0.34	32	0.25	30	0.29
Bacha 2000		78	0.38	40	0.00	71	0.06	56	0.06	79	0.03	62	0.04
Badura 1965		21	0.64	2	0.04	16	0.12	17	0.43	6	0.54	11	0.48
Barbosa 1983		65	0.48	10	0.01	55	0.06	55	0.06	30	0.22	45	0.11
Biret 1990		52	0.52	55	0.00	54	0.06	57	0.06	55	0.05	61	0.05
Blet 2003		7	0.72	20	0.00	17	0.12	11	0.48	10	0.45	13	0.46
Block 1995		58	0.50	46	0.00	36	0.06	42	0.13	47	0.05	48	0.08
Blumental 1952		62	0.49	58	0.00	40	0.06	43	0.13	47	0.05	49	0.08
Boshniakovich 1969		17	0.65	13	0.01	34	0.06	33	0.28	22	0.36	27	0.32
Brailowsky 1960		77	0.40	59	0.00	81	0.04	73	0.04	84	0.03	77	0.03
Bunin 1987		9	0.71	15	0.01	15	0.11	15	0.45	2	0.59	7	0.52
Bunin 1987b		10	0.71	25	0.00	14	0.11	14	0.45	2	0.60	6	0.52
Chiu 1999		74	0.42	22	0.00	65	0.05	68	0.05	71	0.03	66	0.04
Cohen 1997		88	0.15	60	0.00	77	0.03	82	0.03	62	0.04	83	0.03
Cortot 1951		12	0.68	50	0.00	19	0.14	19	0.39	9	0.49	19	0.44
Csalog 1996		71	0.43	30	0.00	59	0.05	71	0.05	36	0.16	47	0.09
Czerny 1949		5	0.73	28	0.00	6	0.09	5	0.56	11	0.51	4	0.53
Czerny 1990		15	0.66	70	0.00	31	0.08	31	0.32	46	0.06	39	0.14
Duchoud 2007		27	0.60	79	0.00	33	0.09	29	0.34	10	0.42	25	0.38
Ezaki 2006		23	0.63	67	0.00	35	0.07	34	0.25	50	0.05	43	0.11
Falvay 1989		81	0.34	80	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	86	0.03	88	0.02
Farrell 1958		70	0.43	72	0.00	70	0.04	74	0.04	85	0.03	81	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		14	0.66	8	0.01	18	0.11	18	0.40	4	0.52	15	0.46
Fliere 1977		13	0.67	32	0.00	30	0.06	27	0.34	58	0.04	41	0.12
Fou 1978		69	0.43	61	0.00	69	0.05	72	0.05	87	0.03	70	0.04
Francois 1956		50	0.53	53	0.00	62	0.08	46	0.08	57	0.05	54	0.06
Friedman 1923		66	0.48	56	0.00	25	0.07	26	0.34	4	0.59	17	0.45
Friedman 1923b		61	0.49	62	0.00	24	0.10	22	0.38	5	0.59	12	0.47
Friedman 1930		63	0.49	90	0.00	37	0.07	36	0.22	18	0.42	29	0.30
Garcia 2007		46	0.56	76	0.00	51	0.05	64	0.05	16	0.41	38	0.14
Garcia 2007b		75	0.42	47	0.00	52	0.05	60	0.05	23	0.22	46	0.10
Gierzod 1998		16	0.66	5	0.02	22	0.11	16	0.44	25	0.33	24	0.38
Gornostaeva 1994		51	0.53	41	0.00	66	0.05	65	0.05	65	0.03	75	0.04
Groot 1988		59	0.50	69	0.00	67	0.06	51	0.06	74	0.03	76	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		24	0.62	4	0.02	3	0.21	3	0.60	6	0.47	5	0.53
Hatto 1993		64	0.49	45	0.00	21	0.11	23	0.36	14	0.43	23	0.39
Hatto 1997		48	0.53	74	0.00	13	0.12	12	0.47	13	0.45	14	0.46
Horowitz 1949		36	0.58	33	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.11	22	0.40	32	0.21
Indjic 1988		56	0.51	68	0.00	20	0.10	21	0.38	13	0.44	21	0.41
Kapell 1951		8	0.72	26	0.00	11	0.12	13	0.47	10	0.44	16	0.45
Kissin 1993		33	0.59	42	0.00	61	0.07	49	0.07	82	0.03	58	0.05
Kushner 1989		34	0.58	84	0.00	58	0.06	54	0.06	69	0.04	56	0.05
Luisada 1991		57	0.50	23	0.00	64	0.05	70	0.05	78	0.03	64	0.04
Lushtak 2004		47	0.54	49	0.00	29	0.07	32	0.30	44	0.09	35	0.16
Malcuzynski 1961		25	0.60	7	0.02	5	0.08	35	0.23	25	0.24	31	0.23
Magaloff 1978		72	0.42	31	0.00	74	0.05	67	0.05	80	0.03	67	0.04
Magin 1975		44	0.57	34	0.00	46	0.06	53	0.06	61	0.04	55	0.05
Michalowski 1933		20	0.64	63	0.00	7	0.09	7	0.53	5	0.53	3	0.53
Milkina 1970		54	0.52	37	0.00	68	0.07	47	0.07	49	0.06	52	0.06
Mohovich 1999		29	0.60	35	0.00	50	0.07	48	0.07	54	0.05	53	0.06
Moravec 1969		67	0.45	36	0.00	76	0.04	79	0.04	57	0.04	63	0.04
Morozova 2008		41	0.57	64	0.00	48	0.05	66	0.05	74	0.03	73	0.04
Neighaus 1950		22	0.63	19	0.00	12	0.13	9	0.51	17	0.34	20	0.42
Niedzielski 1931		45	0.56	88	0.00	56	0.06	58	0.06	44	0.08	51	0.07
Ohlsson 1999		38	0.58	6	0.02	28	0.07	28	0.34	27	0.27	28	0.30
Osinska 1989		37	0.58	51	0.00	60	0.05	63	0.05	76	0.03	65	0.04
Pachmann 1927		68	0.45	48	0.00	72	0.04	75	0.04	52	0.05	71	0.04
Paderewski 1930		40	0.57	11	0.01	44	0.06	44	0.11	30	0.19	37	0.14
Perlemuter 1992		18	0.64	54	0.00	26	0.07	20	0.39	22	0.31	26	0.35
Pierdomenico 2008		79	0.38	44	0.00	79	0.04	80	0.04	76	0.03	79	0.03
Poblocka 1999		2	0.75	3	0.03	4	0.16	8	0.51	10	0.48	9	0.49
Rabcewiczowa 1932		32	0.59	18	0.00	43	0.07	41	0.15	28	0.27	34	0.20
Rachmaninoff 1923		55	0.51	83	0.00	49	0.05	61	0.05	70	0.04	68	0.04
Rangell 2001		73	0.42	91	0.00	75	0.04	76	0.04	68	0.03	84	0.03
Richter 1976		19	0.64	16	0.00	32	0.07	25	0.36	5	0.54	18	0.44
Rosen 1989		42	0.57	24	0.00	53	0.05	62	0.05	72	0.03	74	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		49	0.53	17	0.00	63	0.06	50	0.06	56	0.04	60	0.05
Rosenthal 1931		82	0.32	39	0.00	82	0.03	85	0.03	81	0.02	89	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		85	0.30	77	0.00	83	0.03	81	0.03	83	0.03	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		76	0.41	81	0.00	78	0.04	77	0.04	88	0.02	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		84	0.31	66	0.00	84	0.02	87	0.02	76	0.03	91	0.02
Rossi 2007		86	0.26	89	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	60	0.05	78	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		87	0.24	27	0.00	88	0.03	83	0.03	72	0.04	80	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		83	0.32	71	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	86	0.03	87	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		80	0.37	75	0.00	80	0.04	78	0.04	78	0.04	72	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		4	0.73	14	0.01	2	0.23	4	0.59	4	0.55	2	0.57
Shebanova 2002		26	0.60	52	0.00	42	0.06	40	0.15	45	0.10	42	0.12
Smith 1975		35	0.58	12	0.01	57	0.06	52	0.06	76	0.03	69	0.04
Sokolov 2002		30	0.60	43	0.00	23	0.10	24	0.36	18	0.42	22	0.39
Sztompka 1959		11	0.70	57	0.00	9	0.11	10	0.48	13	0.50	10	0.49
Tomsic 1995		60	0.49	85	0.00	73	0.06	59	0.06	89	0.02	82	0.03
Uninsky 1932		1	0.89	1	0.70	1	0.69	1	0.84	1	0.86	1	0.85
Uninsky 1971		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Wasowski 1980		39	0.58	65	0.00	41	0.06	38	0.18	41	0.10	40	0.13
Zak 1937		28	0.60	29	0.00	47	0.05	69	0.05	50	0.06	57	0.05
Zak 1951		31	0.60	73	0.00	39	0.07	37	0.18	48	0.07	44	0.11
Average		3	0.74	38	0.00	8	0.10	2	0.62	49	0.07	33	0.21
Random 1		89	-0.02	78	0.00	90	0.01	89	0.01	2	0.59	50	0.08
Random 2		91	-0.08	87	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	17	0.25	59	0.05
Random 3		90	-0.07	82	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	60	0.04	90	0.02

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).