Friedman 1923

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		54	0.29	21	0.00	62	0.04	70	0.04	45	0.11	45	0.07
Anderszewski 2003		74	0.23	58	0.00	75	0.05	66	0.05	80	0.03	67	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		10	0.43	25	0.00	7	0.23	8	0.67	19	0.54	6	0.60
Bacha 2000		81	0.18	69	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	81	0.03	75	0.03
Badura 1965		25	0.38	11	0.00	17	0.13	18	0.54	9	0.55	11	0.54
Barbosa 1983		48	0.30	22	0.00	58	0.05	63	0.05	79	0.03	66	0.04
Biret 1990		69	0.25	59	0.00	66	0.05	59	0.05	78	0.03	71	0.04
Blet 2003		23	0.38	46	0.00	26	0.13	26	0.43	26	0.41	19	0.42
Block 1995		17	0.40	26	0.00	22	0.12	16	0.54	35	0.26	21	0.37
Blumental 1952		55	0.28	27	0.00	57	0.05	64	0.05	51	0.06	60	0.05
Boshniakovich 1969		22	0.38	60	0.00	14	0.11	17	0.54	49	0.06	29	0.18
Brailowsky 1960		42	0.32	39	0.00	48	0.07	49	0.07	40	0.15	39	0.10
Bunin 1987		49	0.30	70	0.00	30	0.07	32	0.30	52	0.06	33	0.13
Bunin 1987b		65	0.26	17	0.00	49	0.06	55	0.06	53	0.05	55	0.05
Chiu 1999		20	0.39	12	0.00	27	0.08	28	0.39	33	0.21	25	0.29
Cohen 1997		79	0.18	71	0.00	84	0.03	77	0.03	80	0.03	83	0.03
Cortot 1951		82	0.18	47	0.00	83	0.03	85	0.03	77	0.03	85	0.03
Csalog 1996		38	0.33	40	0.00	51	0.06	57	0.06	44	0.11	43	0.08
Czerny 1949		87	0.12	72	0.00	87	0.03	79	0.03	88	0.02	88	0.02
Czerny 1990		26	0.37	73	0.00	21	0.10	19	0.54	39	0.19	24	0.32
Duchoud 2007		53	0.29	74	0.00	46	0.05	61	0.05	45	0.09	46	0.07
Ezaki 2006		76	0.20	75	0.00	78	0.02	89	0.02	72	0.04	74	0.03
Falvay 1989		75	0.23	76	0.00	73	0.04	68	0.04	81	0.03	77	0.03
Farrell 1958		56	0.28	6	0.00	50	0.07	50	0.07	48	0.07	44	0.07
Ferenczy 1958		88	0.08	32	0.00	88	0.03	78	0.03	85	0.03	81	0.03
Fliere 1977		4	0.50	23	0.00	4	0.30	4	0.78	24	0.46	4	0.60
Fou 1978		27	0.36	13	0.00	24	0.12	22	0.49	59	0.05	30	0.16
Francois 1956		73	0.23	61	0.00	41	0.06	44	0.11	64	0.04	48	0.07
Friedman 1923		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Friedman 1923b		1	0.97	1	0.99	1	0.98	1	1.00	1	1.00	1	1.00
Friedman 1930		2	0.67	2	0.00	2	0.84	2	0.94	1	0.95	2	0.94
Garcia 2007		52	0.29	18	0.00	59	0.05	58	0.05	55	0.05	59	0.05
Garcia 2007b		60	0.28	28	0.00	60	0.07	46	0.07	63	0.05	52	0.06
Gierzod 1998		72	0.23	62	0.00	77	0.04	76	0.04	87	0.03	82	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		67	0.26	77	0.00	40	0.06	40	0.14	77	0.03	50	0.06
Groot 1988		36	0.34	41	0.00	34	0.08	31	0.33	66	0.04	37	0.11
Harasiewicz 1955		21	0.39	5	0.00	37	0.08	35	0.26	72	0.05	38	0.11
Hatto 1993		30	0.36	78	0.00	31	0.07	27	0.41	67	0.04	34	0.13
Hatto 1997		63	0.27	29	0.00	63	0.05	62	0.05	86	0.03	68	0.04
Horowitz 1949		24	0.38	33	0.00	23	0.11	20	0.52	8	0.63	9	0.57
Indjic 1988		34	0.35	30	0.00	35	0.11	30	0.36	57	0.06	32	0.15
Kapell 1951		57	0.28	48	0.00	65	0.06	51	0.06	64	0.05	54	0.05
Kissin 1993		32	0.35	16	0.00	38	0.09	36	0.24	45	0.17	28	0.20
Kushner 1989		31	0.35	19	0.00	39	0.11	33	0.28	57	0.05	35	0.12
Luisada 1991		19	0.39	35	0.00	25	0.11	24	0.48	38	0.15	26	0.27
Lushtak 2004		41	0.33	49	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.11	73	0.04	47	0.07
Malcuzynski 1961		33	0.35	79	0.00	47	0.06	54	0.06	55	0.05	56	0.05
Magaloff 1978		11	0.42	50	0.00	11	0.11	11	0.64	20	0.40	14	0.51
Magin 1975		39	0.33	14	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	71	0.04	49	0.06
Michalowski 1933		59	0.28	80	0.00	29	0.07	41	0.13	40	0.17	31	0.15
Milkina 1970		84	0.18	81	0.00	74	0.04	75	0.04	84	0.03	79	0.03
Mohovich 1999		51	0.29	51	0.00	64	0.05	60	0.05	71	0.04	70	0.04
Moravec 1969		66	0.26	36	0.00	69	0.04	71	0.04	88	0.02	76	0.03
Morozova 2008		45	0.31	7	0.00	28	0.08	38	0.18	51	0.05	40	0.09
Neighaus 1950		6	0.44	37	0.00	5	0.27	14	0.60	4	0.61	7	0.60
Niedzielski 1931		29	0.36	31	0.00	13	0.14	25	0.47	17	0.44	17	0.45
Ohlsson 1999		8	0.43	34	0.00	12	0.12	13	0.60	18	0.39	16	0.48
Osinska 1989		43	0.32	82	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.12	61	0.05	41	0.08
Pachmann 1927		18	0.40	9	0.00	18	0.10	23	0.49	11	0.56	13	0.52
Paderewski 1930		44	0.31	83	0.00	32	0.07	37	0.24	26	0.43	23	0.32
Perlemuter 1992		28	0.36	15	0.00	33	0.07	29	0.38	25	0.39	20	0.38
Pierdomenico 2008		61	0.27	42	0.00	68	0.05	65	0.05	47	0.05	53	0.05
Poblocka 1999		37	0.33	84	0.00	42	0.06	39	0.14	67	0.05	42	0.08
Rabcewiczowa 1932		86	0.14	85	0.00	85	0.03	84	0.03	88	0.02	86	0.02
Rachmaninoff 1923		13	0.41	20	0.00	10	0.10	10	0.66	14	0.54	5	0.60
Rangell 2001		47	0.30	63	0.00	55	0.06	56	0.06	47	0.07	51	0.06
Richter 1976		14	0.41	4	0.00	19	0.10	21	0.49	38	0.24	22	0.34
Rosen 1989		9	0.43	64	0.00	15	0.14	9	0.66	22	0.31	18	0.45
Rosenthal 1930		62	0.27	52	0.00	70	0.04	69	0.04	62	0.05	69	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		83	0.18	86	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	64	0.04	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		77	0.20	87	0.00	79	0.03	86	0.03	55	0.05	72	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		70	0.24	53	0.00	61	0.06	52	0.06	73	0.03	73	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		78	0.19	43	0.00	76	0.03	80	0.03	70	0.04	84	0.03
Rossi 2007		80	0.18	54	0.00	80	0.03	87	0.03	60	0.05	63	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		71	0.23	88	0.00	71	0.04	74	0.04	77	0.03	78	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		46	0.31	55	0.00	53	0.07	48	0.07	86	0.03	61	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		40	0.33	89	0.00	52	0.07	47	0.07	84	0.03	57	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		50	0.29	90	0.00	54	0.06	53	0.06	64	0.04	58	0.05
Shebanova 2002		5	0.45	3	0.00	6	0.30	7	0.69	23	0.48	8	0.58
Smith 1975		64	0.27	65	0.00	72	0.04	73	0.04	57	0.05	64	0.04
Sokolov 2002		68	0.25	56	0.00	67	0.05	67	0.05	79	0.03	62	0.04
Sztompka 1959		16	0.40	57	0.00	20	0.09	15	0.60	27	0.38	15	0.48
Tomsic 1995		85	0.15	8	0.00	86	0.03	82	0.03	87	0.02	87	0.02
Uninsky 1932		35	0.34	44	0.00	36	0.08	34	0.28	59	0.05	36	0.12
Uninsky 1971		58	0.28	66	0.00	56	0.04	72	0.04	68	0.04	65	0.04
Wasowski 1980		12	0.42	10	0.00	9	0.18	6	0.70	27	0.41	10	0.54
Zak 1937		7	0.43	24	0.00	8	0.23	5	0.73	11	0.60	3	0.66
Zak 1951		15	0.41	67	0.00	16	0.17	12	0.62	20	0.43	12	0.52
Average		3	0.57	38	0.00	3	0.61	3	0.90	46	0.08	27	0.27
Random 1		89	-0.06	91	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	82	0.02	89	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.08	68	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01
Random 3		91	-0.12	45	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	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).