Blet 2003

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		20	0.40	8	0.01	33	0.09	29	0.36	29	0.32	25	0.34
Anderszewski 2003		64	0.29	65	0.00	75	0.05	57	0.05	61	0.05	51	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		9	0.43	47	0.00	21	0.08	13	0.51	29	0.35	17	0.42
Bacha 2000		76	0.24	66	0.00	60	0.04	65	0.04	62	0.04	58	0.04
Badura 1965		58	0.30	28	0.00	57	0.05	56	0.05	46	0.09	47	0.07
Barbosa 1983		17	0.40	68	0.00	23	0.08	28	0.39	65	0.06	36	0.15
Biret 1990		38	0.36	35	0.00	18	0.08	30	0.36	36	0.31	26	0.33
Blet 2003		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Block 1995		48	0.34	21	0.00	26	0.06	36	0.24	47	0.07	39	0.13
Blumental 1952		60	0.30	45	0.00	59	0.04	71	0.04	70	0.05	68	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		19	0.40	38	0.00	20	0.07	19	0.48	47	0.07	31	0.18
Brailowsky 1960		71	0.27	77	0.00	73	0.03	82	0.03	67	0.05	61	0.04
Bunin 1987		34	0.37	11	0.01	12	0.09	17	0.49	15	0.52	9	0.50
Bunin 1987b		33	0.38	14	0.01	13	0.15	18	0.48	11	0.53	7	0.50
Chiu 1999		37	0.37	37	0.00	43	0.08	43	0.15	52	0.05	44	0.09
Cohen 1997		77	0.23	87	0.00	82	0.03	79	0.03	67	0.03	85	0.03
Cortot 1951		84	0.19	58	0.00	83	0.02	85	0.02	68	0.04	88	0.03
Csalog 1996		15	0.41	42	0.00	14	0.16	16	0.49	17	0.42	15	0.45
Czerny 1949		85	0.19	60	0.00	88	0.03	72	0.03	73	0.04	81	0.03
Czerny 1990		41	0.36	85	0.00	48	0.06	46	0.06	83	0.03	69	0.04
Duchoud 2007		67	0.29	59	0.00	54	0.05	54	0.05	52	0.06	54	0.05
Ezaki 2006		68	0.29	79	0.00	76	0.04	58	0.04	70	0.05	57	0.04
Falvay 1989		63	0.29	88	0.00	74	0.03	75	0.03	85	0.02	89	0.02
Farrell 1958		75	0.25	72	0.00	77	0.04	70	0.04	70	0.04	63	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		88	0.16	54	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	58	0.06	80	0.03
Fliere 1977		3	0.51	4	0.02	3	0.31	3	0.76	25	0.45	4	0.58
Fou 1978		27	0.38	55	0.00	41	0.07	40	0.22	55	0.05	41	0.10
Francois 1956		55	0.31	48	0.00	62	0.04	64	0.04	36	0.19	46	0.09
Friedman 1923		29	0.38	75	0.00	28	0.07	26	0.41	26	0.43	18	0.42
Friedman 1923b		24	0.39	43	0.00	27	0.06	20	0.47	24	0.48	14	0.47
Friedman 1930		28	0.38	41	0.00	29	0.07	25	0.42	26	0.38	20	0.40
Garcia 2007		73	0.26	70	0.00	71	0.03	73	0.03	81	0.03	83	0.03
Garcia 2007b		45	0.35	24	0.00	38	0.06	39	0.22	36	0.18	29	0.20
Gierzod 1998		78	0.22	80	0.00	79	0.03	77	0.03	86	0.03	82	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		70	0.28	7	0.01	56	0.04	59	0.04	81	0.03	86	0.03
Groot 1988		4	0.45	12	0.01	7	0.20	4	0.67	16	0.47	5	0.56
Harasiewicz 1955		7	0.45	9	0.01	19	0.08	22	0.46	70	0.05	37	0.15
Hatto 1993		10	0.43	17	0.01	5	0.18	11	0.53	27	0.35	16	0.43
Hatto 1997		23	0.39	76	0.00	11	0.12	15	0.49	29	0.30	23	0.38
Horowitz 1949		13	0.41	10	0.01	17	0.10	23	0.44	14	0.56	8	0.50
Indjic 1988		11	0.42	51	0.00	6	0.24	10	0.53	25	0.41	13	0.47
Kapell 1951		26	0.39	29	0.00	22	0.08	21	0.47	51	0.07	30	0.18
Kissin 1993		22	0.39	34	0.00	40	0.07	38	0.22	46	0.11	33	0.16
Kushner 1989		52	0.32	62	0.00	69	0.04	67	0.04	83	0.03	76	0.03
Luisada 1991		2	0.54	2	0.13	2	0.58	2	0.81	2	0.73	1	0.77
Lushtak 2004		61	0.29	26	0.00	50	0.05	51	0.05	75	0.04	66	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		53	0.32	18	0.01	63	0.04	62	0.04	81	0.03	78	0.03
Magaloff 1978		65	0.29	86	0.00	72	0.03	74	0.03	67	0.04	73	0.03
Magin 1975		6	0.45	5	0.02	10	0.13	9	0.55	26	0.40	11	0.47
Michalowski 1933		12	0.41	13	0.01	16	0.08	12	0.52	3	0.69	3	0.60
Milkina 1970		66	0.29	40	0.00	65	0.03	76	0.03	78	0.03	77	0.03
Mohovich 1999		56	0.31	53	0.00	52	0.06	48	0.06	70	0.04	55	0.05
Moravec 1969		49	0.34	31	0.00	47	0.05	52	0.05	67	0.04	59	0.04
Morozova 2008		46	0.35	61	0.00	51	0.06	50	0.06	66	0.04	52	0.05
Neighaus 1950		5	0.45	25	0.00	4	0.26	5	0.66	6	0.57	2	0.61
Niedzielski 1931		18	0.40	3	0.03	9	0.10	8	0.56	9	0.55	6	0.55
Ohlsson 1999		14	0.41	23	0.00	31	0.07	24	0.43	49	0.05	35	0.15
Osinska 1989		57	0.30	91	0.00	61	0.04	63	0.04	67	0.05	60	0.04
Pachmann 1927		80	0.22	82	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	79	0.03	90	0.02
Paderewski 1930		44	0.35	16	0.01	34	0.06	35	0.27	17	0.54	22	0.38
Perlemuter 1992		30	0.38	15	0.01	37	0.08	34	0.29	22	0.40	24	0.34
Pierdomenico 2008		72	0.27	20	0.01	58	0.04	68	0.04	69	0.04	62	0.04
Poblocka 1999		40	0.36	33	0.00	35	0.07	33	0.30	51	0.06	38	0.13
Rabcewiczowa 1932		86	0.18	81	0.00	78	0.03	83	0.03	81	0.03	75	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		43	0.35	22	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.13	49	0.07	40	0.10
Rangell 2001		74	0.26	36	0.00	70	0.03	80	0.03	66	0.04	87	0.03
Richter 1976		21	0.39	6	0.01	42	0.07	41	0.20	60	0.05	42	0.10
Rosen 1989		51	0.33	67	0.00	55	0.05	55	0.05	88	0.03	67	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		59	0.30	57	0.00	68	0.03	78	0.03	61	0.05	65	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		83	0.20	89	0.00	81	0.04	66	0.04	57	0.05	64	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.21	83	0.00	80	0.03	81	0.03	51	0.05	70	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		69	0.28	49	0.00	64	0.04	60	0.04	56	0.05	71	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		81	0.22	73	0.00	67	0.04	69	0.04	32	0.24	43	0.10
Rossi 2007		87	0.17	64	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	54	0.05	72	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		79	0.22	63	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	74	0.03	74	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		54	0.31	84	0.00	53	0.06	47	0.06	64	0.04	56	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		62	0.29	69	0.00	66	0.04	61	0.04	85	0.03	79	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		31	0.38	19	0.01	30	0.07	37	0.23	30	0.28	27	0.25
Shebanova 2002		36	0.37	30	0.00	25	0.08	31	0.35	52	0.07	34	0.16
Smith 1975		42	0.35	39	0.00	46	0.05	53	0.05	55	0.06	50	0.05
Sokolov 2002		32	0.38	50	0.00	32	0.09	27	0.39	23	0.43	19	0.41
Sztompka 1959		35	0.37	27	0.00	39	0.07	42	0.17	65	0.05	45	0.09
Tomsic 1995		39	0.36	78	0.00	36	0.10	32	0.32	46	0.08	32	0.16
Uninsky 1932		47	0.35	56	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	83	0.03	53	0.05
Uninsky 1971		50	0.34	74	0.00	49	0.06	49	0.06	57	0.06	49	0.06
Wasowski 1980		8	0.45	32	0.00	8	0.18	6	0.59	29	0.39	10	0.48
Zak 1937		16	0.41	46	0.00	15	0.10	7	0.57	21	0.39	12	0.47
Zak 1951		25	0.39	44	0.00	24	0.10	14	0.50	26	0.30	21	0.39
Average		1	0.59	1	0.63	1	0.62	1	0.86	66	0.05	28	0.21
Random 1		89	0.00	71	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	32	0.26	48	0.07
Random 2		91	-0.03	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	70	0.03	91	0.02
Random 3		90	0.00	52	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	43	0.11	84	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).