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		42	0.38	16	0.01	25	0.08	31	0.34	15	0.51	26	0.42
Anderszewski 2003		70	0.31	69	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.12	40	0.24	43	0.17
Ashkenazy 1981		8	0.50	17	0.01	13	0.18	12	0.61	13	0.62	8	0.61
Bacha 2000		82	0.24	80	0.00	81	0.04	82	0.04	67	0.04	72	0.04
Badura 1965		76	0.29	70	0.00	72	0.04	70	0.04	57	0.04	81	0.04
Barbosa 1983		40	0.38	30	0.00	39	0.07	37	0.28	39	0.20	37	0.24
Biret 1990		83	0.23	81	0.00	84	0.04	76	0.04	82	0.03	87	0.03
Blet 2003		46	0.37	27	0.00	56	0.05	64	0.05	41	0.17	57	0.09
Block 1995		24	0.41	11	0.01	16	0.16	17	0.55	9	0.61	11	0.58
Blumental 1952		56	0.34	32	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.07	39	0.17	54	0.11
Boshniakovich 1969		31	0.40	41	0.00	37	0.08	32	0.33	40	0.17	38	0.24
Brailowsky 1960		79	0.25	77	0.00	77	0.04	80	0.04	68	0.05	74	0.04
Bunin 1987		50	0.36	18	0.00	61	0.05	60	0.05	48	0.06	69	0.05
Bunin 1987b		55	0.34	20	0.00	62	0.05	58	0.05	51	0.05	66	0.05
Chiu 1999		27	0.41	37	0.00	30	0.06	34	0.32	22	0.30	29	0.31
Cohen 1997		69	0.31	43	0.00	74	0.04	74	0.04	55	0.05	84	0.04
Cortot 1951		60	0.33	65	0.00	47	0.07	46	0.07	15	0.54	42	0.19
Csalog 1996		75	0.29	48	0.00	76	0.05	65	0.05	65	0.05	67	0.05
Czerny 1949		49	0.36	49	0.00	58	0.05	66	0.05	35	0.35	50	0.13
Czerny 1990		1	0.63	1	0.57	1	0.57	1	0.88	1	0.86	1	0.87
Duchoud 2007		74	0.29	73	0.00	75	0.04	67	0.04	63	0.05	80	0.04
Ezaki 2006		63	0.32	71	0.00	68	0.04	78	0.04	61	0.05	71	0.04
Falvay 1989		58	0.33	78	0.00	71	0.04	75	0.04	70	0.05	75	0.04
Farrell 1958		43	0.38	56	0.00	41	0.07	42	0.22	23	0.37	34	0.29
Ferenczy 1958		87	0.16	42	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	75	0.04	86	0.03
Fliere 1977		4	0.55	35	0.00	4	0.18	3	0.79	12	0.58	5	0.68
Fou 1978		15	0.47	34	0.00	18	0.16	14	0.58	19	0.50	15	0.54
Francois 1956		77	0.28	84	0.00	79	0.04	81	0.04	65	0.04	85	0.04
Friedman 1923		33	0.40	31	0.00	27	0.09	26	0.38	14	0.60	20	0.48
Friedman 1923b		30	0.40	5	0.01	23	0.08	23	0.42	9	0.64	18	0.52
Friedman 1930		44	0.38	46	0.00	38	0.07	40	0.24	26	0.38	32	0.30
Garcia 2007		64	0.32	87	0.00	46	0.07	48	0.07	25	0.33	46	0.15
Garcia 2007b		51	0.35	50	0.00	49	0.05	57	0.05	27	0.27	51	0.12
Gierzod 1998		48	0.36	53	0.00	40	0.09	39	0.25	38	0.16	39	0.20
Gornostaeva 1994		54	0.35	67	0.00	65	0.05	63	0.05	53	0.06	70	0.05
Groot 1988		21	0.42	38	0.00	21	0.11	21	0.47	27	0.36	27	0.41
Harasiewicz 1955		12	0.49	7	0.01	6	0.17	8	0.67	19	0.48	14	0.57
Hatto 1993		29	0.41	13	0.01	14	0.12	16	0.56	25	0.38	21	0.46
Hatto 1997		57	0.34	14	0.01	33	0.06	38	0.26	39	0.14	41	0.19
Horowitz 1949		36	0.39	24	0.00	52	0.05	59	0.05	23	0.50	44	0.16
Indjic 1988		35	0.39	4	0.02	15	0.12	19	0.51	27	0.38	24	0.44
Kapell 1951		23	0.41	63	0.00	31	0.07	28	0.38	70	0.05	48	0.14
Kissin 1993		3	0.56	12	0.01	3	0.38	2	0.79	3	0.85	2	0.82
Kushner 1989		7	0.51	19	0.00	12	0.21	10	0.66	19	0.45	16	0.54
Luisada 1991		34	0.40	85	0.00	55	0.05	61	0.05	47	0.08	61	0.06
Lushtak 2004		67	0.31	44	0.00	69	0.04	77	0.04	69	0.04	82	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		10	0.50	6	0.01	11	0.18	11	0.64	16	0.51	12	0.57
Magaloff 1978		19	0.43	22	0.00	36	0.09	35	0.32	33	0.25	35	0.28
Magin 1975		38	0.39	47	0.00	59	0.06	49	0.06	48	0.06	62	0.06
Michalowski 1933		71	0.31	64	0.00	63	0.04	71	0.04	28	0.33	53	0.11
Milkina 1970		52	0.35	62	0.00	42	0.10	41	0.23	42	0.15	40	0.19
Mohovich 1999		68	0.31	23	0.00	57	0.06	51	0.06	51	0.05	68	0.05
Moravec 1969		26	0.41	51	0.00	34	0.06	29	0.37	31	0.31	28	0.34
Morozova 2008		13	0.48	3	0.09	9	0.17	13	0.60	12	0.54	13	0.57
Neighaus 1950		14	0.47	15	0.01	17	0.17	15	0.58	4	0.60	10	0.59
Niedzielski 1931		28	0.41	21	0.00	28	0.08	24	0.39	11	0.51	22	0.45
Ohlsson 1999		20	0.43	9	0.01	29	0.07	30	0.37	34	0.25	31	0.30
Osinska 1989		66	0.32	54	0.00	70	0.05	62	0.05	78	0.03	73	0.04
Pachmann 1927		62	0.33	29	0.00	73	0.04	68	0.04	58	0.05	78	0.04
Paderewski 1930		45	0.38	45	0.00	32	0.06	36	0.30	8	0.61	25	0.43
Perlemuter 1992		16	0.46	52	0.00	24	0.08	25	0.39	3	0.64	19	0.50
Pierdomenico 2008		39	0.39	61	0.00	53	0.06	53	0.06	24	0.37	45	0.15
Poblocka 1999		9	0.50	8	0.01	8	0.20	5	0.72	4	0.65	6	0.68
Rabcewiczowa 1932		59	0.33	36	0.00	50	0.06	54	0.06	46	0.07	63	0.06
Rachmaninoff 1923		25	0.41	33	0.00	20	0.09	18	0.51	10	0.55	17	0.53
Rangell 2001		37	0.39	39	0.00	48	0.07	47	0.07	35	0.34	47	0.15
Richter 1976		2	0.59	2	0.16	2	0.32	4	0.78	6	0.75	3	0.76
Rosen 1989		22	0.42	75	0.00	35	0.07	33	0.33	45	0.06	49	0.14
Rosenthal 1930		47	0.37	66	0.00	43	0.08	43	0.16	18	0.58	33	0.30
Rosenthal 1931		84	0.20	58	0.00	82	0.03	83	0.03	52	0.06	79	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		85	0.17	55	0.00	85	0.03	86	0.03	59	0.04	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		73	0.30	86	0.00	67	0.04	79	0.04	41	0.16	58	0.08
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.17	82	0.00	86	0.03	85	0.03	75	0.03	88	0.03
Rossi 2007		80	0.25	68	0.00	80	0.04	73	0.04	32	0.28	52	0.11
Rubinstein 1939		53	0.35	72	0.00	51	0.06	50	0.06	43	0.08	59	0.07
Rubinstein 1952		17	0.45	26	0.00	19	0.09	22	0.47	30	0.43	23	0.45
Rubinstein 1966		18	0.44	59	0.00	22	0.10	20	0.48	38	0.15	36	0.27
Schilhawsky 1960		72	0.31	57	0.00	60	0.05	56	0.05	42	0.11	60	0.07
Shebanova 2002		6	0.52	28	0.00	10	0.15	9	0.67	13	0.54	9	0.60
Smith 1975		65	0.32	79	0.00	66	0.05	55	0.05	53	0.06	65	0.05
Sokolov 2002		61	0.33	83	0.00	64	0.04	69	0.04	46	0.06	64	0.05
Sztompka 1959		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Tomsic 1995		41	0.38	40	0.00	54	0.06	52	0.06	43	0.13	56	0.09
Uninsky 1932		11	0.49	25	0.00	7	0.15	6	0.70	6	0.69	4	0.69
Uninsky 1971		32	0.40	60	0.00	26	0.09	27	0.38	34	0.26	30	0.31
Wasowski 1980		5	0.53	10	0.01	5	0.27	7	0.67	8	0.60	7	0.63
Zak 1937		78	0.28	89	0.00	78	0.04	72	0.04	69	0.04	76	0.04
Zak 1951		81	0.24	74	0.00	83	0.03	87	0.03	61	0.05	77	0.04
Random 1		88	0.02	76	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	10	0.47	55	0.10
Random 2		89	0.00	90	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	51	0.05	90	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.01	88	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	38	0.16	83	0.04

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).