Michalowski 1933

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

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).