Csalog 1996

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		65	0.29	56	0.00	72	0.04	73	0.04	73	0.04	70	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		72	0.28	66	0.00	66	0.05	65	0.05	67	0.04	69	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		59	0.31	80	0.00	59	0.06	54	0.06	53	0.07	55	0.06
Bacha 2000		88	0.14	67	0.00	88	0.03	80	0.03	87	0.02	87	0.02
Badura 1965		49	0.34	45	0.00	55	0.06	57	0.06	29	0.25	38	0.12
Barbosa 1983		64	0.29	81	0.00	63	0.04	68	0.04	71	0.04	68	0.04
Biret 1990		7	0.44	22	0.00	15	0.11	10	0.51	12	0.62	3	0.56
Blet 2003		16	0.41	9	0.01	11	0.08	17	0.42	16	0.49	11	0.45
Block 1995		25	0.37	29	0.00	40	0.05	36	0.15	51	0.07	44	0.10
Blumental 1952		78	0.23	85	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	86	0.03	80	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		30	0.36	28	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	73	0.04	53	0.07
Brailowsky 1960		62	0.30	52	0.00	73	0.04	77	0.04	77	0.04	62	0.04
Bunin 1987		48	0.34	88	0.00	36	0.06	32	0.19	44	0.13	30	0.16
Bunin 1987b		51	0.33	86	0.00	32	0.06	31	0.22	37	0.23	25	0.22
Chiu 1999		4	0.45	24	0.00	5	0.15	4	0.61	13	0.52	2	0.56
Cohen 1997		75	0.26	16	0.00	67	0.04	72	0.04	65	0.04	72	0.04
Cortot 1951		85	0.19	63	0.00	87	0.03	82	0.03	85	0.02	90	0.02
Csalog 1996		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Czerny 1949		79	0.22	75	0.00	80	0.02	88	0.02	76	0.03	88	0.02
Czerny 1990		45	0.34	19	0.00	29	0.05	28	0.24	49	0.08	33	0.14
Duchoud 2007		22	0.39	36	0.00	16	0.13	11	0.49	8	0.62	4	0.55
Ezaki 2006		74	0.27	90	0.00	79	0.02	87	0.02	83	0.03	86	0.02
Falvay 1989		6	0.45	3	0.10	4	0.21	9	0.51	18	0.42	9	0.46
Farrell 1958		33	0.36	58	0.00	42	0.05	37	0.15	29	0.27	26	0.20
Ferenczy 1958		69	0.28	61	0.00	71	0.04	69	0.04	39	0.34	37	0.12
Fliere 1977		3	0.51	5	0.03	3	0.32	3	0.71	27	0.40	6	0.53
Fou 1978		40	0.35	26	0.00	30	0.05	25	0.27	61	0.04	41	0.10
Francois 1956		86	0.18	84	0.00	86	0.03	84	0.03	75	0.03	85	0.03
Friedman 1923		52	0.33	59	0.00	61	0.11	44	0.11	57	0.06	52	0.08
Friedman 1923b		54	0.33	21	0.00	60	0.06	52	0.06	51	0.06	56	0.06
Friedman 1930		47	0.34	12	0.01	33	0.05	41	0.12	49	0.07	47	0.09
Garcia 2007		57	0.32	11	0.01	44	0.06	40	0.12	30	0.30	28	0.19
Garcia 2007b		63	0.30	10	0.01	47	0.05	61	0.05	78	0.04	74	0.04
Gierzod 1998		77	0.25	89	0.00	68	0.04	74	0.04	77	0.04	71	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		18	0.40	7	0.01	12	0.08	21	0.35	36	0.29	18	0.32
Groot 1988		14	0.42	51	0.00	24	0.09	23	0.32	62	0.04	39	0.11
Harasiewicz 1955		12	0.43	87	0.00	22	0.10	20	0.36	63	0.05	35	0.13
Hatto 1993		41	0.35	82	0.00	54	0.08	47	0.08	66	0.05	57	0.06
Hatto 1997		44	0.35	65	0.00	57	0.07	48	0.07	71	0.04	61	0.05
Horowitz 1949		68	0.28	32	0.00	75	0.05	62	0.05	60	0.04	65	0.04
Indjic 1988		43	0.35	55	0.00	50	0.06	53	0.06	51	0.07	54	0.06
Kapell 1951		23	0.38	40	0.00	10	0.09	16	0.43	32	0.24	17	0.32
Kissin 1993		31	0.36	25	0.00	19	0.12	15	0.44	32	0.47	10	0.45
Kushner 1989		20	0.39	6	0.03	18	0.12	14	0.45	65	0.05	32	0.15
Luisada 1991		26	0.37	47	0.00	26	0.05	29	0.24	44	0.11	29	0.16
Lushtak 2004		42	0.35	8	0.01	38	0.05	42	0.12	41	0.08	43	0.10
Malcuzynski 1961		58	0.31	33	0.00	49	0.05	60	0.05	61	0.05	59	0.05
Magaloff 1978		19	0.39	15	0.01	25	0.09	30	0.23	35	0.22	24	0.22
Magin 1975		13	0.42	72	0.00	20	0.11	19	0.39	32	0.35	13	0.37
Michalowski 1933		56	0.32	41	0.00	27	0.05	46	0.09	15	0.44	27	0.20
Milkina 1970		76	0.26	69	0.00	64	0.05	58	0.05	76	0.03	64	0.04
Mohovich 1999		50	0.33	14	0.01	52	0.06	55	0.06	42	0.10	51	0.08
Moravec 1969		29	0.36	83	0.00	39	0.05	35	0.16	69	0.04	48	0.08
Morozova 2008		34	0.36	91	0.00	37	0.05	33	0.17	57	0.05	46	0.09
Neighaus 1950		60	0.31	57	0.00	62	0.04	71	0.04	75	0.03	84	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		55	0.32	70	0.00	28	0.05	27	0.25	28	0.32	19	0.28
Ohlsson 1999		32	0.36	73	0.00	48	0.05	63	0.05	80	0.03	67	0.04
Osinska 1989		2	0.52	2	0.15	2	0.41	2	0.72	7	0.69	1	0.70
Pachmann 1927		24	0.38	13	0.01	34	0.05	38	0.15	15	0.50	20	0.27
Paderewski 1930		83	0.19	34	0.00	78	0.03	78	0.03	61	0.05	66	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		39	0.35	27	0.00	53	0.07	51	0.07	34	0.22	36	0.12
Pierdomenico 2008		27	0.37	17	0.00	51	0.06	56	0.06	26	0.37	31	0.15
Poblocka 1999		17	0.41	20	0.00	14	0.09	13	0.47	29	0.39	12	0.43
Rabcewiczowa 1932		73	0.27	78	0.00	69	0.05	64	0.05	70	0.04	63	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		46	0.34	35	0.00	23	0.09	24	0.30	39	0.21	21	0.25
Rangell 2001		80	0.21	74	0.00	76	0.04	76	0.04	78	0.03	82	0.03
Richter 1976		11	0.44	18	0.00	13	0.08	18	0.42	34	0.30	15	0.35
Rosen 1989		5	0.45	30	0.00	17	0.14	12	0.48	28	0.28	14	0.37
Rosenthal 1930		81	0.21	79	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	80	0.03	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		87	0.17	68	0.00	85	0.03	79	0.03	74	0.04	77	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.21	50	0.00	83	0.04	75	0.04	56	0.05	73	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		70	0.28	38	0.00	58	0.07	50	0.07	43	0.15	45	0.10
Rosenthal 1931d		84	0.19	48	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	73	0.04	83	0.03
Rossi 2007		36	0.36	44	0.00	35	0.05	34	0.16	3	0.69	16	0.33
Rubinstein 1939		37	0.35	42	0.00	41	0.05	39	0.13	47	0.05	49	0.08
Rubinstein 1952		28	0.37	43	0.00	46	0.05	59	0.05	50	0.08	58	0.06
Rubinstein 1966		15	0.41	4	0.04	8	0.12	7	0.54	41	0.12	22	0.25
Schilhawsky 1960		67	0.29	62	0.00	65	0.04	70	0.04	79	0.03	78	0.03
Shebanova 2002		21	0.39	76	0.00	21	0.10	22	0.34	69	0.05	34	0.13
Smith 1975		71	0.28	54	0.00	77	0.03	86	0.03	65	0.04	75	0.03
Sokolov 2002		35	0.36	49	0.00	56	0.07	49	0.07	43	0.14	40	0.10
Sztompka 1959		66	0.29	53	0.00	70	0.05	66	0.05	66	0.05	60	0.05
Tomsic 1995		38	0.35	71	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.11	54	0.06	50	0.08
Uninsky 1932		53	0.33	39	0.00	31	0.07	26	0.26	61	0.04	42	0.10
Uninsky 1971		61	0.30	46	0.00	74	0.05	67	0.05	85	0.02	76	0.03
Wasowski 1980		9	0.44	23	0.00	6	0.13	5	0.58	23	0.49	5	0.53
Zak 1937		8	0.44	31	0.00	7	0.12	8	0.53	13	0.52	7	0.52
Zak 1951		10	0.44	37	0.00	9	0.11	6	0.54	12	0.51	8	0.52
Average		1	0.58	1	0.48	1	0.48	1	0.84	49	0.07	23	0.24
Random 1		89	-0.04	77	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	54	0.04	81	0.03
Random 2		91	-0.08	60	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	83	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		90	-0.06	64	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	63	0.03	89	0.02

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).