Kissin 1993

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		61	0.31	54	0.00	67	0.06	66	0.06	81	0.03	75	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		47	0.36	62	0.00	37	0.08	38	0.37	36	0.33	30	0.35
Ashkenazy 1981		3	0.59	3	0.19	3	0.25	8	0.80	3	0.83	4	0.81
Bacha 2000		64	0.29	63	0.00	69	0.06	58	0.06	55	0.05	62	0.05
Badura 1965		51	0.35	72	0.00	48	0.07	54	0.07	26	0.31	47	0.15
Barbosa 1983		21	0.44	46	0.00	30	0.06	26	0.52	43	0.17	36	0.30
Biret 1990		78	0.21	50	0.00	78	0.04	77	0.04	87	0.02	82	0.03
Blet 2003		35	0.39	33	0.00	52	0.11	46	0.11	38	0.22	46	0.16
Block 1995		20	0.44	19	0.00	14	0.20	20	0.58	9	0.62	13	0.60
Blumental 1952		42	0.37	76	0.00	51	0.10	47	0.10	57	0.06	56	0.08
Boshniakovich 1969		26	0.42	21	0.00	22	0.10	24	0.54	34	0.28	28	0.39
Brailowsky 1960		84	0.14	55	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	85	0.03	84	0.02
Bunin 1987		70	0.26	74	0.00	75	0.06	57	0.06	73	0.03	78	0.04
Bunin 1987b		72	0.25	66	0.00	74	0.04	79	0.04	78	0.03	79	0.03
Chiu 1999		36	0.39	41	0.00	44	0.09	44	0.18	64	0.04	55	0.08
Cohen 1997		81	0.17	89	0.00	83	0.04	80	0.04	74	0.03	81	0.03
Cortot 1951		79	0.20	61	0.00	73	0.04	76	0.04	58	0.06	69	0.05
Csalog 1996		44	0.36	29	0.00	25	0.06	32	0.47	15	0.44	21	0.45
Czerny 1949		75	0.23	77	0.00	71	0.06	68	0.06	70	0.04	66	0.05
Czerny 1990		4	0.56	7	0.02	4	0.33	3	0.86	5	0.82	1	0.84
Duchoud 2007		63	0.30	78	0.00	60	0.06	59	0.06	37	0.14	54	0.09
Ezaki 2006		52	0.35	15	0.01	57	0.07	56	0.07	73	0.04	61	0.05
Falvay 1989		28	0.42	36	0.00	27	0.07	33	0.47	41	0.15	39	0.27
Farrell 1958		62	0.30	38	0.00	56	0.06	67	0.06	52	0.06	57	0.06
Ferenczy 1958		85	0.13	32	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	78	0.03	86	0.02
Fliere 1977		12	0.49	22	0.00	17	0.30	11	0.73	30	0.37	18	0.52
Fou 1978		10	0.49	20	0.00	13	0.16	12	0.67	13	0.60	11	0.63
Francois 1956		83	0.16	80	0.00	82	0.03	83	0.03	84	0.02	91	0.02
Friedman 1923		50	0.35	59	0.00	43	0.07	45	0.17	36	0.24	42	0.20
Friedman 1923b		46	0.36	43	0.00	42	0.10	41	0.27	31	0.37	34	0.32
Friedman 1930		66	0.28	37	0.00	63	0.06	69	0.06	46	0.07	58	0.06
Garcia 2007		73	0.25	90	0.00	70	0.07	51	0.07	78	0.04	67	0.05
Garcia 2007b		57	0.32	40	0.00	59	0.06	61	0.06	49	0.06	60	0.06
Gierzod 1998		25	0.43	27	0.00	31	0.07	31	0.47	36	0.24	31	0.34
Gornostaeva 1994		71	0.25	84	0.00	77	0.08	50	0.08	70	0.04	59	0.06
Groot 1988		41	0.38	70	0.00	40	0.12	37	0.39	76	0.04	50	0.12
Harasiewicz 1955		17	0.47	26	0.00	19	0.15	13	0.66	41	0.18	32	0.34
Hatto 1993		16	0.47	18	0.00	15	0.17	18	0.61	18	0.49	17	0.55
Hatto 1997		43	0.36	51	0.00	36	0.07	39	0.34	55	0.05	49	0.13
Horowitz 1949		68	0.27	88	0.00	72	0.05	71	0.05	82	0.03	73	0.04
Indjic 1988		14	0.48	17	0.00	12	0.17	15	0.65	14	0.61	12	0.63
Kapell 1951		19	0.45	69	0.00	20	0.14	16	0.64	31	0.28	25	0.42
Kissin 1993		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Kushner 1989		7	0.54	9	0.01	7	0.22	6	0.82	13	0.57	8	0.68
Luisada 1991		22	0.43	64	0.00	26	0.07	27	0.50	22	0.38	22	0.44
Lushtak 2004		27	0.42	25	0.00	18	0.17	19	0.59	12	0.57	15	0.58
Malcuzynski 1961		9	0.49	10	0.01	11	0.17	10	0.75	10	0.56	9	0.65
Magaloff 1978		31	0.40	24	0.00	28	0.08	25	0.53	28	0.32	26	0.41
Magin 1975		8	0.51	12	0.01	10	0.21	7	0.80	6	0.71	6	0.75
Michalowski 1933		69	0.26	75	0.00	68	0.07	52	0.07	39	0.18	51	0.11
Milkina 1970		58	0.32	85	0.00	54	0.06	63	0.06	75	0.03	72	0.04
Mohovich 1999		65	0.29	23	0.00	64	0.05	72	0.05	74	0.04	77	0.04
Moravec 1969		24	0.43	44	0.00	32	0.07	30	0.48	28	0.33	27	0.40
Morozova 2008		23	0.43	79	0.00	23	0.12	23	0.54	30	0.39	20	0.46
Neighaus 1950		40	0.38	35	0.00	38	0.09	35	0.42	28	0.33	29	0.37
Niedzielski 1931		49	0.35	60	0.00	47	0.07	55	0.07	30	0.29	48	0.14
Ohlsson 1999		30	0.40	39	0.00	29	0.07	34	0.42	34	0.26	33	0.33
Osinska 1989		60	0.31	52	0.00	58	0.06	64	0.06	76	0.04	63	0.05
Pachmann 1927		45	0.36	14	0.01	45	0.09	43	0.18	16	0.49	35	0.30
Paderewski 1930		32	0.40	16	0.00	21	0.10	22	0.56	3	0.75	10	0.65
Perlemuter 1992		38	0.38	34	0.00	49	0.08	49	0.08	27	0.36	43	0.17
Pierdomenico 2008		53	0.34	86	0.00	50	0.08	48	0.08	27	0.34	45	0.16
Poblocka 1999		29	0.42	31	0.00	33	0.09	28	0.50	30	0.36	24	0.42
Rabcewiczowa 1932		86	0.12	58	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	87	0.02	85	0.02
Rachmaninoff 1923		74	0.24	47	0.00	76	0.06	60	0.06	80	0.03	70	0.04
Rangell 2001		54	0.34	71	0.00	62	0.05	74	0.05	59	0.05	68	0.05
Richter 1976		6	0.55	8	0.01	6	0.37	5	0.83	5	0.78	5	0.80
Rosen 1989		55	0.33	87	0.00	55	0.06	65	0.06	80	0.03	76	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		82	0.17	91	0.00	86	0.03	85	0.03	86	0.02	88	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		80	0.18	49	0.00	80	0.04	81	0.04	76	0.04	74	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		87	0.12	65	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	88	0.02	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		77	0.21	81	0.00	79	0.04	78	0.04	86	0.02	83	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		88	0.09	83	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	88	0.02	89	0.02
Rossi 2007		76	0.23	28	0.00	53	0.05	70	0.05	11	0.50	44	0.16
Rubinstein 1939		56	0.33	42	0.00	39	0.10	40	0.28	38	0.15	41	0.20
Rubinstein 1952		18	0.45	13	0.01	24	0.13	21	0.57	33	0.40	19	0.48
Rubinstein 1966		13	0.49	4	0.04	8	0.20	17	0.62	15	0.56	14	0.59
Schilhawsky 1960		59	0.32	56	0.00	66	0.05	75	0.05	55	0.05	65	0.05
Shebanova 2002		2	0.60	1	0.28	1	0.28	2	0.87	2	0.79	2	0.83
Smith 1975		67	0.28	53	0.00	65	0.05	73	0.05	63	0.04	71	0.04
Sokolov 2002		34	0.40	30	0.00	41	0.07	42	0.26	34	0.33	37	0.29
Sztompka 1959		5	0.56	6	0.03	5	0.36	4	0.85	3	0.79	3	0.82
Tomsic 1995		33	0.40	57	0.00	34	0.12	29	0.49	23	0.39	23	0.44
Uninsky 1932		11	0.49	5	0.04	9	0.23	9	0.76	5	0.70	7	0.73
Uninsky 1971		39	0.38	48	0.00	35	0.12	36	0.40	39	0.20	38	0.28
Wasowski 1980		15	0.47	11	0.01	16	0.20	14	0.65	21	0.50	16	0.57
Zak 1937		37	0.39	45	0.00	46	0.06	62	0.06	41	0.15	53	0.09
Zak 1951		48	0.36	82	0.00	61	0.07	53	0.07	68	0.04	64	0.05
Average		1	0.60	2	0.27	2	0.43	1	0.89	62	0.05	40	0.21
Random 1		89	0.03	73	0.00	89	0.02	87	0.02	4	0.50	52	0.10
Random 2		90	0.00	67	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	67	0.04	87	0.02
Random 3		91	-0.05	68	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	44	0.11	80	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).