Ashkenazy 1981

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		32	0.42	17	0.00	30	0.07	32	0.31	26	0.35	32	0.33
Anderszewski 2003		71	0.29	67	0.00	61	0.05	67	0.05	48	0.07	61	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Bacha 2000		18	0.45	37	0.00	16	0.11	22	0.49	4	0.69	16	0.58
Badura 1965		51	0.38	19	0.00	41	0.06	41	0.19	14	0.47	34	0.30
Barbosa 1983		46	0.38	74	0.00	60	0.06	60	0.06	61	0.06	59	0.06
Biret 1990		67	0.31	54	0.00	73	0.04	78	0.04	69	0.04	78	0.04
Blet 2003		22	0.43	66	0.00	33	0.08	29	0.35	13	0.51	26	0.42
Block 1995		55	0.36	63	0.00	36	0.07	39	0.22	55	0.06	48	0.11
Blumental 1952		33	0.41	51	0.00	31	0.06	33	0.31	35	0.23	37	0.27
Boshniakovich 1969		39	0.40	34	0.00	27	0.11	28	0.37	40	0.20	38	0.27
Brailowsky 1960		82	0.22	53	0.00	83	0.04	75	0.04	71	0.05	72	0.04
Bunin 1987		31	0.42	68	0.00	32	0.07	30	0.33	18	0.49	27	0.40
Bunin 1987b		37	0.40	58	0.00	38	0.06	35	0.27	25	0.41	31	0.33
Chiu 1999		25	0.43	24	0.00	34	0.07	36	0.25	36	0.17	39	0.21
Cohen 1997		80	0.25	60	0.00	78	0.03	84	0.03	76	0.03	85	0.03
Cortot 1951		86	0.18	83	0.00	85	0.03	81	0.03	84	0.02	90	0.02
Csalog 1996		68	0.31	82	0.00	65	0.07	53	0.07	54	0.06	60	0.06
Czerny 1949		85	0.19	85	0.00	87	0.04	79	0.04	85	0.02	83	0.03
Czerny 1990		16	0.48	27	0.00	22	0.15	17	0.56	28	0.50	21	0.53
Duchoud 2007		44	0.39	36	0.00	43	0.08	42	0.19	17	0.45	35	0.29
Ezaki 2006		66	0.31	71	0.00	74	0.04	76	0.04	75	0.04	71	0.04
Falvay 1989		27	0.43	56	0.00	47	0.10	46	0.10	51	0.06	52	0.08
Farrell 1958		79	0.25	22	0.00	75	0.03	87	0.03	81	0.02	88	0.02
Ferenczy 1958		88	0.12	59	0.00	88	0.03	86	0.03	83	0.03	82	0.03
Fliere 1977		12	0.50	40	0.00	18	0.12	16	0.60	39	0.24	28	0.38
Fou 1978		4	0.54	18	0.00	7	0.22	4	0.72	6	0.67	3	0.69
Francois 1956		75	0.27	31	0.00	76	0.03	85	0.03	68	0.04	87	0.03
Friedman 1923		28	0.43	44	0.00	21	0.12	19	0.54	8	0.67	15	0.60
Friedman 1923b		26	0.43	23	0.00	20	0.20	18	0.56	7	0.70	11	0.63
Friedman 1930		23	0.43	11	0.01	19	0.15	20	0.54	9	0.63	17	0.58
Garcia 2007		74	0.27	47	0.00	67	0.05	72	0.05	59	0.05	68	0.05
Garcia 2007b		43	0.39	12	0.01	40	0.06	43	0.18	24	0.43	36	0.28
Gierzod 1998		50	0.38	90	0.00	44	0.08	44	0.16	67	0.05	50	0.09
Gornostaeva 1994		73	0.28	79	0.00	81	0.05	73	0.05	86	0.03	77	0.04
Groot 1988		13	0.49	29	0.00	11	0.13	12	0.64	13	0.50	18	0.57
Harasiewicz 1955		36	0.40	30	0.00	52	0.08	49	0.08	60	0.05	64	0.06
Hatto 1993		9	0.51	14	0.01	5	0.24	6	0.69	9	0.62	9	0.65
Hatto 1997		38	0.40	76	0.00	37	0.07	38	0.22	80	0.04	49	0.09
Horowitz 1949		20	0.44	6	0.02	14	0.11	21	0.51	2	0.71	14	0.60
Indjic 1988		7	0.51	7	0.01	6	0.17	7	0.69	12	0.62	7	0.65
Kapell 1951		42	0.39	33	0.00	51	0.06	59	0.06	49	0.08	55	0.07
Kissin 1993		3	0.59	5	0.03	3	0.40	3	0.83	8	0.80	1	0.81
Kushner 1989		6	0.54	16	0.00	9	0.21	5	0.70	17	0.52	13	0.60
Luisada 1991		8	0.51	35	0.00	10	0.17	9	0.65	6	0.68	5	0.66
Lushtak 2004		70	0.30	57	0.00	56	0.06	61	0.06	45	0.07	63	0.06
Malcuzynski 1961		21	0.44	8	0.01	23	0.12	26	0.41	36	0.25	33	0.32
Magaloff 1978		60	0.35	86	0.00	59	0.06	63	0.06	86	0.03	73	0.04
Magin 1975		11	0.50	9	0.01	12	0.13	10	0.65	10	0.65	6	0.65
Michalowski 1933		54	0.37	15	0.01	28	0.11	27	0.39	2	0.70	22	0.52
Milkina 1970		63	0.34	72	0.00	63	0.07	57	0.07	68	0.04	66	0.05
Mohovich 1999		64	0.33	61	0.00	58	0.06	58	0.06	58	0.05	69	0.05
Moravec 1969		40	0.40	84	0.00	42	0.06	40	0.21	52	0.06	45	0.11
Morozova 2008		17	0.46	13	0.01	17	0.11	15	0.61	22	0.48	19	0.54
Neighaus 1950		30	0.42	49	0.00	26	0.12	23	0.47	17	0.45	24	0.46
Niedzielski 1931		15	0.48	3	0.07	4	0.32	13	0.63	2	0.74	4	0.68
Ohlsson 1999		19	0.45	48	0.00	25	0.14	24	0.47	15	0.42	25	0.44
Osinska 1989		77	0.26	77	0.00	80	0.04	80	0.04	85	0.03	79	0.03
Pachmann 1927		48	0.38	55	0.00	49	0.07	55	0.07	21	0.45	41	0.18
Paderewski 1930		52	0.38	32	0.00	39	0.06	37	0.23	8	0.63	29	0.38
Perlemuter 1992		41	0.39	46	0.00	35	0.07	34	0.27	19	0.45	30	0.35
Pierdomenico 2008		59	0.35	73	0.00	68	0.05	70	0.05	62	0.04	74	0.04
Poblocka 1999		62	0.34	78	0.00	62	0.07	54	0.07	64	0.05	57	0.06
Rabcewiczowa 1932		84	0.20	75	0.00	84	0.05	69	0.05	72	0.04	75	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		34	0.41	10	0.01	24	0.12	25	0.45	16	0.52	23	0.48
Rangell 2001		72	0.28	64	0.00	79	0.04	77	0.04	88	0.02	86	0.03
Richter 1976		5	0.54	4	0.04	8	0.18	8	0.67	17	0.61	10	0.64
Rosen 1989		61	0.34	80	0.00	64	0.05	66	0.05	86	0.03	76	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		65	0.33	50	0.00	70	0.05	68	0.05	43	0.18	51	0.09
Rosenthal 1931		81	0.23	87	0.00	77	0.03	82	0.03	49	0.07	67	0.05
Rosenthal 1931b		76	0.26	43	0.00	69	0.05	71	0.05	29	0.44	42	0.15
Rosenthal 1931c		69	0.30	62	0.00	71	0.06	62	0.06	61	0.05	70	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		83	0.22	52	0.00	72	0.05	74	0.05	41	0.14	53	0.08
Rossi 2007		87	0.15	81	0.00	86	0.03	88	0.03	72	0.04	80	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		58	0.35	69	0.00	57	0.07	52	0.07	51	0.05	58	0.06
Rubinstein 1952		47	0.38	26	0.00	53	0.08	50	0.08	46	0.09	54	0.08
Rubinstein 1966		35	0.40	39	0.00	29	0.08	31	0.32	64	0.06	44	0.14
Schilhawsky 1960		57	0.35	70	0.00	66	0.06	65	0.06	51	0.06	62	0.06
Shebanova 2002		2	0.60	2	0.10	2	0.48	2	0.85	4	0.78	2	0.81
Smith 1975		78	0.26	89	0.00	82	0.03	83	0.03	84	0.03	81	0.03
Sokolov 2002		45	0.38	38	0.00	54	0.08	51	0.08	41	0.15	46	0.11
Sztompka 1959		10	0.50	20	0.00	15	0.11	14	0.62	13	0.61	12	0.61
Tomsic 1995		49	0.38	42	0.00	48	0.07	56	0.07	41	0.18	47	0.11
Uninsky 1932		14	0.49	21	0.00	13	0.10	11	0.64	10	0.67	8	0.65
Uninsky 1971		56	0.36	65	0.00	50	0.09	48	0.09	52	0.06	56	0.07
Wasowski 1980		53	0.37	41	0.00	55	0.06	64	0.06	56	0.05	65	0.05
Zak 1937		24	0.43	25	0.00	45	0.08	45	0.16	32	0.22	40	0.19
Zak 1951		29	0.43	28	0.00	46	0.10	47	0.10	35	0.20	43	0.14
Average		1	0.65	1	0.61	1	0.61	1	0.90	32	0.33	20	0.54
Random 1		89	-0.02	45	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	53	0.04	84	0.03
Random 2		90	-0.03	88	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	71	0.03	89	0.02
Random 3		91	-0.06	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	82	0.02	91	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).