Wasowski 1980

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		11	0.65	79	0.00	26	0.06	28	0.20	78	0.03	48	0.08
Anderszewski 2003		26	0.61	68	0.00	22	0.07	20	0.28	26	0.22	15	0.25
Ashkenazy 1981		36	0.59	38	0.00	21	0.09	24	0.24	41	0.18	17	0.21
Bacha 2000		65	0.51	82	0.00	54	0.06	47	0.06	37	0.17	42	0.10
Badura 1965		41	0.58	22	0.01	35	0.05	35	0.13	38	0.18	27	0.15
Barbosa 1983		61	0.54	11	0.02	40	0.04	44	0.09	18	0.32	23	0.17
Biret 1990		10	0.65	43	0.00	7	0.07	8	0.40	32	0.25	9	0.32
Blet 2003		31	0.60	24	0.01	49	0.04	71	0.04	49	0.06	62	0.05
Block 1995		51	0.56	31	0.00	38	0.06	38	0.12	31	0.24	24	0.17
Blumental 1952		68	0.50	49	0.00	73	0.05	64	0.05	76	0.02	86	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		16	0.64	56	0.00	34	0.06	31	0.17	38	0.17	25	0.17
Brailowsky 1960		48	0.57	32	0.00	66	0.06	46	0.06	47	0.06	57	0.06
Bunin 1987		69	0.50	65	0.00	70	0.04	70	0.04	50	0.06	64	0.05
Bunin 1987b		72	0.49	57	0.00	69	0.04	78	0.04	45	0.11	53	0.07
Chiu 1999		55	0.55	8	0.03	9	0.07	25	0.23	22	0.33	11	0.28
Cohen 1997		87	0.30	53	0.00	84	0.04	68	0.04	67	0.04	78	0.04
Cortot 1951		7	0.67	3	0.10	3	0.15	16	0.35	13	0.46	4	0.40
Csalog 1996		64	0.51	29	0.00	47	0.04	75	0.04	20	0.36	35	0.12
Czerny 1949		23	0.62	36	0.00	25	0.06	22	0.26	46	0.07	31	0.13
Czerny 1990		3	0.69	23	0.01	13	0.07	6	0.41	59	0.04	32	0.13
Duchoud 2007		49	0.57	51	0.00	60	0.04	79	0.04	44	0.10	58	0.06
Ezaki 2006		25	0.62	64	0.00	56	0.05	66	0.05	70	0.04	68	0.04
Falvay 1989		63	0.52	47	0.00	78	0.04	76	0.04	63	0.05	69	0.04
Farrell 1958		33	0.60	26	0.00	52	0.05	63	0.05	70	0.04	73	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		34	0.60	40	0.00	31	0.05	34	0.13	21	0.30	19	0.20
Fliere 1977		6	0.67	9	0.02	17	0.08	7	0.40	45	0.11	16	0.21
Fou 1978		60	0.54	52	0.00	65	0.05	56	0.05	59	0.05	61	0.05
Francois 1956		56	0.55	33	0.00	68	0.04	67	0.04	54	0.05	81	0.04
Friedman 1923		83	0.35	69	0.00	82	0.04	82	0.04	52	0.06	67	0.05
Friedman 1923b		84	0.35	70	0.00	81	0.03	87	0.03	50	0.06	79	0.04
Friedman 1930		79	0.44	71	0.00	75	0.04	77	0.04	66	0.05	76	0.04
Garcia 2007		67	0.51	89	0.00	53	0.05	62	0.05	32	0.27	36	0.12
Garcia 2007b		78	0.44	13	0.02	50	0.04	74	0.04	29	0.18	52	0.08
Gierzod 1998		22	0.62	78	0.00	33	0.05	27	0.20	47	0.06	41	0.11
Gornostaeva 1994		32	0.60	16	0.01	59	0.06	49	0.06	44	0.10	51	0.08
Groot 1988		30	0.60	28	0.00	39	0.04	43	0.09	41	0.11	43	0.10
Harasiewicz 1955		57	0.55	18	0.01	42	0.05	37	0.12	56	0.04	56	0.07
Hatto 1993		66	0.51	67	0.00	46	0.05	53	0.05	42	0.10	55	0.07
Hatto 1997		58	0.54	25	0.00	45	0.05	42	0.09	37	0.13	40	0.11
Horowitz 1949		4	0.68	6	0.03	6	0.08	4	0.44	12	0.54	1	0.49
Indjic 1988		62	0.53	58	0.00	44	0.04	39	0.12	32	0.18	26	0.15
Kapell 1951		5	0.67	5	0.03	5	0.14	2	0.51	26	0.29	5	0.38
Kissin 1993		38	0.59	39	0.00	61	0.05	65	0.05	62	0.04	75	0.04
Kushner 1989		8	0.66	44	0.00	19	0.09	17	0.34	49	0.05	29	0.13
Luisada 1991		12	0.65	15	0.01	18	0.08	9	0.39	32	0.32	7	0.35
Lushtak 2004		52	0.56	77	0.00	41	0.04	40	0.11	49	0.06	49	0.08
Malcuzynski 1961		43	0.58	72	0.00	36	0.04	32	0.16	76	0.03	54	0.07
Magaloff 1978		59	0.54	48	0.00	72	0.05	52	0.05	57	0.05	60	0.05
Magin 1975		44	0.58	34	0.00	48	0.04	69	0.04	57	0.05	72	0.04
Michalowski 1933		71	0.49	59	0.00	62	0.05	60	0.05	44	0.15	46	0.09
Milkina 1970		15	0.64	41	0.00	23	0.08	18	0.31	66	0.05	34	0.12
Mohovich 1999		28	0.61	75	0.00	30	0.05	36	0.13	51	0.05	50	0.08
Moravec 1969		37	0.59	27	0.00	29	0.05	33	0.15	38	0.22	21	0.18
Morozova 2008		9	0.66	20	0.01	14	0.08	14	0.36	41	0.11	18	0.20
Neighaus 1950		39	0.59	35	0.00	20	0.07	29	0.18	58	0.05	47	0.09
Niedzielski 1931		14	0.64	4	0.04	4	0.12	5	0.44	6	0.50	2	0.47
Ohlsson 1999		18	0.64	30	0.00	12	0.08	13	0.38	34	0.20	12	0.28
Osinska 1989		2	0.73	2	0.12	2	0.21	3	0.48	23	0.35	3	0.41
Pachmann 1927		81	0.39	80	0.00	83	0.03	86	0.03	67	0.04	83	0.03
Paderewski 1930		53	0.55	88	0.00	67	0.04	81	0.04	79	0.03	82	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		24	0.62	73	0.00	32	0.05	30	0.17	51	0.05	44	0.09
Pierdomenico 2008		76	0.46	62	0.00	76	0.04	84	0.04	64	0.04	71	0.04
Poblocka 1999		19	0.63	17	0.01	11	0.07	11	0.39	36	0.16	14	0.25
Rabcewiczowa 1932		42	0.58	87	0.00	57	0.05	58	0.05	37	0.16	45	0.09
Rachmaninoff 1923		27	0.61	19	0.01	24	0.09	19	0.29	57	0.04	37	0.11
Rangell 2001		74	0.47	21	0.01	64	0.05	61	0.05	48	0.05	65	0.05
Richter 1976		40	0.58	37	0.00	51	0.04	72	0.04	21	0.31	39	0.11
Rosen 1989		47	0.58	54	0.00	63	0.05	51	0.05	63	0.04	77	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		80	0.42	74	0.00	80	0.04	83	0.04	74	0.03	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.30	86	0.00	86	0.04	73	0.04	71	0.03	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		88	0.27	91	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	82	0.03	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		82	0.36	76	0.00	85	0.05	54	0.05	61	0.04	80	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.30	90	0.00	88	0.04	85	0.04	83	0.02	88	0.03
Rossi 2007		77	0.44	42	0.00	37	0.05	45	0.09	33	0.20	28	0.13
Rubinstein 1939		73	0.48	14	0.01	74	0.05	57	0.05	26	0.30	33	0.12
Rubinstein 1952		75	0.46	46	0.00	79	0.06	48	0.06	57	0.05	66	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		54	0.55	83	0.00	71	0.04	80	0.04	48	0.06	63	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		17	0.64	55	0.00	16	0.08	12	0.38	39	0.25	10	0.31
Shebanova 2002		13	0.64	10	0.02	10	0.08	10	0.39	29	0.26	8	0.32
Smith 1975		50	0.56	85	0.00	58	0.05	50	0.05	65	0.04	70	0.04
Sokolov 2002		45	0.58	60	0.00	55	0.05	59	0.05	50	0.05	59	0.05
Sztompka 1959		20	0.63	12	0.02	15	0.08	21	0.27	44	0.13	20	0.19
Tomsic 1995		70	0.49	63	0.00	77	0.05	55	0.05	58	0.04	74	0.04
Uninsky 1932		21	0.63	7	0.03	8	0.07	15	0.36	27	0.39	6	0.37
Uninsky 1971		46	0.58	50	0.00	43	0.05	41	0.10	38	0.18	30	0.13
Wasowski 1980		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Zak 1937		29	0.60	45	0.00	27	0.05	26	0.21	40	0.16	22	0.18
Zak 1951		35	0.60	81	0.00	28	0.07	23	0.25	63	0.05	38	0.11
Average		1	0.76	1	0.37	1	0.36	1	0.67	43	0.10	13	0.26
Random 1		91	-0.15	66	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	50	0.04	89	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.13	84	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	84	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		89	-0.02	61	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	51	0.05	87	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).