Kapell 1951

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		81	0.23	88	0.00	82	0.03	87	0.03	70	0.04	85	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		33	0.42	40	0.00	16	0.11	16	0.41	13	0.61	13	0.50
Ashkenazy 1981		47	0.39	50	0.00	64	0.08	49	0.08	59	0.06	64	0.07
Bacha 2000		58	0.36	24	0.00	44	0.04	43	0.09	16	0.49	39	0.21
Badura 1965		78	0.25	73	0.00	74	0.04	73	0.04	80	0.03	86	0.03
Barbosa 1983		6	0.51	10	0.01	3	0.21	6	0.58	5	0.69	4	0.63
Biret 1990		52	0.38	39	0.00	62	0.06	54	0.06	37	0.26	56	0.12
Blet 2003		50	0.39	44	0.00	51	0.07	51	0.07	21	0.47	44	0.18
Block 1995		46	0.39	37	0.00	27	0.06	33	0.23	32	0.30	38	0.26
Blumental 1952		31	0.42	15	0.01	38	0.07	35	0.21	21	0.49	31	0.32
Boshniakovich 1969		37	0.41	46	0.00	29	0.06	26	0.31	29	0.31	32	0.31
Brailowsky 1960		73	0.27	74	0.00	77	0.04	74	0.04	52	0.06	69	0.05
Bunin 1987		30	0.43	43	0.00	39	0.07	38	0.18	10	0.55	34	0.31
Bunin 1987b		24	0.44	56	0.00	33	0.08	29	0.29	4	0.61	22	0.42
Chiu 1999		12	0.47	12	0.01	12	0.15	19	0.39	16	0.50	19	0.44
Cohen 1997		79	0.24	16	0.01	78	0.03	84	0.03	83	0.03	87	0.03
Cortot 1951		83	0.22	67	0.00	73	0.04	77	0.04	45	0.12	65	0.07
Csalog 1996		51	0.38	13	0.01	25	0.05	32	0.24	16	0.43	30	0.32
Czerny 1949		64	0.34	5	0.02	41	0.04	44	0.09	30	0.49	41	0.21
Czerny 1990		2	0.58	3	0.05	2	0.40	2	0.79	3	0.85	1	0.82
Duchoud 2007		48	0.39	41	0.00	53	0.07	50	0.07	11	0.54	42	0.19
Ezaki 2006		67	0.32	14	0.01	58	0.05	67	0.05	56	0.07	66	0.06
Falvay 1989		17	0.46	64	0.00	28	0.06	24	0.33	22	0.38	29	0.35
Farrell 1958		43	0.40	36	0.00	17	0.13	25	0.32	6	0.59	20	0.43
Ferenczy 1958		84	0.19	90	0.00	86	0.04	79	0.04	69	0.04	78	0.04
Fliere 1977		14	0.47	42	0.00	14	0.12	14	0.44	32	0.35	26	0.39
Fou 1978		16	0.46	45	0.00	15	0.14	12	0.50	9	0.64	7	0.57
Francois 1956		75	0.27	53	0.00	76	0.06	57	0.06	65	0.04	73	0.05
Friedman 1923		71	0.28	61	0.00	71	0.05	64	0.05	51	0.06	74	0.05
Friedman 1923b		69	0.29	62	0.00	70	0.05	68	0.05	52	0.06	71	0.05
Friedman 1930		65	0.34	25	0.00	66	0.09	46	0.09	60	0.05	61	0.07
Garcia 2007		29	0.43	31	0.00	30	0.07	27	0.31	10	0.59	21	0.43
Garcia 2007b		27	0.43	76	0.00	20	0.07	23	0.34	10	0.67	15	0.48
Gierzod 1998		70	0.29	86	0.00	67	0.05	66	0.05	70	0.05	70	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		61	0.36	49	0.00	60	0.05	72	0.05	39	0.17	59	0.09
Groot 1988		49	0.39	51	0.00	56	0.06	58	0.06	84	0.03	81	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		7	0.51	19	0.00	10	0.12	11	0.51	18	0.49	14	0.50
Hatto 1993		11	0.49	6	0.01	9	0.12	9	0.53	13	0.59	9	0.56
Hatto 1997		15	0.46	48	0.00	18	0.13	15	0.42	14	0.53	17	0.47
Horowitz 1949		56	0.37	34	0.00	46	0.04	76	0.04	38	0.29	57	0.11
Indjic 1988		9	0.50	35	0.00	11	0.15	10	0.52	11	0.63	8	0.57
Kapell 1951		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Kissin 1993		21	0.45	69	0.00	32	0.10	31	0.28	16	0.64	23	0.42
Kushner 1989		10	0.49	20	0.00	8	0.17	8	0.54	16	0.52	12	0.53
Luisada 1991		42	0.40	58	0.00	63	0.06	52	0.06	50	0.07	67	0.06
Lushtak 2004		41	0.40	71	0.00	52	0.08	48	0.08	28	0.32	50	0.16
Malcuzynski 1961		23	0.44	9	0.01	31	0.08	22	0.35	28	0.44	27	0.39
Magaloff 1978		66	0.33	85	0.00	68	0.05	63	0.05	74	0.03	75	0.04
Magin 1975		36	0.41	26	0.00	34	0.06	34	0.22	24	0.42	35	0.30
Michalowski 1933		77	0.27	78	0.00	72	0.04	75	0.04	38	0.21	58	0.09
Milkina 1970		28	0.43	11	0.01	21	0.08	17	0.40	21	0.55	16	0.47
Mohovich 1999		38	0.41	28	0.00	26	0.05	30	0.28	33	0.35	33	0.31
Moravec 1969		20	0.45	55	0.00	37	0.06	37	0.21	31	0.32	37	0.26
Morozova 2008		34	0.42	32	0.00	19	0.09	18	0.40	14	0.53	18	0.46
Neighaus 1950		68	0.31	83	0.00	69	0.06	56	0.06	58	0.05	72	0.05
Niedzielski 1931		57	0.36	22	0.00	40	0.05	42	0.09	22	0.36	43	0.18
Ohlsson 1999		62	0.35	81	0.00	55	0.05	62	0.05	66	0.04	77	0.04
Osinska 1989		40	0.40	59	0.00	36	0.06	39	0.17	43	0.16	46	0.16
Pachmann 1927		60	0.36	33	0.00	59	0.05	69	0.05	19	0.47	51	0.15
Paderewski 1930		76	0.27	82	0.00	75	0.05	60	0.05	45	0.12	60	0.08
Perlemuter 1992		74	0.27	72	0.00	80	0.03	80	0.03	69	0.04	82	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		55	0.37	54	0.00	48	0.05	61	0.05	17	0.50	48	0.16
Poblocka 1999		13	0.47	38	0.00	13	0.11	13	0.48	7	0.63	10	0.55
Rabcewiczowa 1932		54	0.37	80	0.00	61	0.05	65	0.05	36	0.31	55	0.12
Rachmaninoff 1923		53	0.38	60	0.00	57	0.06	53	0.06	36	0.24	54	0.12
Rangell 2001		26	0.43	8	0.01	49	0.06	55	0.06	21	0.50	45	0.17
Richter 1976		4	0.53	30	0.00	5	0.18	3	0.65	6	0.76	2	0.70
Rosen 1989		45	0.39	63	0.00	54	0.05	70	0.05	64	0.04	80	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		72	0.28	84	0.00	79	0.03	83	0.03	55	0.05	79	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		87	0.17	77	0.00	87	0.03	88	0.03	66	0.04	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		88	0.16	87	0.00	88	0.03	85	0.03	76	0.03	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		82	0.23	91	0.00	84	0.03	81	0.03	85	0.02	91	0.02
Rosenthal 1931d		85	0.18	57	0.00	85	0.03	86	0.03	68	0.04	88	0.03
Rossi 2007		86	0.18	89	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	65	0.04	83	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		44	0.39	66	0.00	35	0.06	36	0.21	22	0.41	36	0.29
Rubinstein 1952		8	0.50	4	0.02	7	0.18	4	0.61	6	0.67	3	0.64
Rubinstein 1966		5	0.52	17	0.00	6	0.18	5	0.59	12	0.63	5	0.61
Schilhawsky 1960		59	0.36	52	0.00	50	0.06	59	0.06	12	0.45	49	0.16
Shebanova 2002		25	0.44	18	0.00	45	0.04	47	0.08	59	0.06	62	0.07
Smith 1975		80	0.24	79	0.00	83	0.04	78	0.04	69	0.04	76	0.04
Sokolov 2002		63	0.34	65	0.00	65	0.10	41	0.10	37	0.27	47	0.16
Sztompka 1959		35	0.41	70	0.00	47	0.05	71	0.05	29	0.38	52	0.14
Tomsic 1995		32	0.42	21	0.00	42	0.04	40	0.11	22	0.39	40	0.21
Uninsky 1932		18	0.46	29	0.00	24	0.05	28	0.30	15	0.54	25	0.40
Uninsky 1971		39	0.40	23	0.00	43	0.04	45	0.09	40	0.19	53	0.13
Wasowski 1980		3	0.53	2	0.07	4	0.20	7	0.56	5	0.63	6	0.59
Zak 1937		19	0.45	7	0.01	22	0.06	20	0.37	16	0.46	24	0.41
Zak 1951		22	0.44	27	0.00	23	0.07	21	0.35	21	0.43	28	0.39
Average		1	0.64	1	0.68	1	0.67	1	0.85	29	0.36	11	0.55
Random 1		90	-0.02	68	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	31	0.27	63	0.07
Random 2		89	0.02	47	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	49	0.05	90	0.02
Random 3		91	-0.03	75	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	21	0.31	68	0.06

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).