Malcuzynski 1961

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		67	0.34	13	0.00	75	0.04	76	0.04	57	0.05	85	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		55	0.38	51	0.00	33	0.08	30	0.35	18	0.55	30	0.44
Ashkenazy 1981		26	0.44	9	0.00	38	0.10	36	0.25	26	0.41	36	0.32
Bacha 2000		40	0.40	46	0.00	47	0.07	48	0.07	9	0.61	43	0.21
Badura 1965		51	0.38	23	0.00	23	0.07	41	0.17	12	0.52	40	0.30
Barbosa 1983		18	0.46	12	0.00	16	0.09	33	0.33	30	0.33	35	0.33
Biret 1990		86	0.25	87	0.00	84	0.03	87	0.03	85	0.03	90	0.03
Blet 2003		72	0.32	65	0.00	81	0.03	81	0.03	62	0.04	88	0.03
Block 1995		25	0.44	8	0.01	25	0.09	21	0.49	8	0.65	15	0.56
Blumental 1952		22	0.44	31	0.00	24	0.07	18	0.50	11	0.64	13	0.57
Boshniakovich 1969		4	0.53	17	0.00	4	0.24	5	0.67	7	0.69	5	0.68
Brailowsky 1960		77	0.29	89	0.00	80	0.03	84	0.03	53	0.06	80	0.04
Bunin 1987		17	0.46	58	0.00	29	0.09	23	0.47	3	0.69	14	0.57
Bunin 1987b		20	0.45	66	0.00	30	0.09	27	0.44	3	0.68	16	0.55
Chiu 1999		56	0.38	71	0.00	66	0.05	67	0.05	53	0.05	72	0.05
Cohen 1997		75	0.30	55	0.00	82	0.03	78	0.03	44	0.20	66	0.08
Cortot 1951		64	0.35	28	0.00	57	0.04	71	0.04	9	0.63	52	0.16
Csalog 1996		73	0.31	90	0.00	68	0.05	61	0.05	60	0.05	74	0.05
Czerny 1949		42	0.40	62	0.00	22	0.07	29	0.40	17	0.68	21	0.52
Czerny 1990		21	0.45	56	0.00	18	0.10	22	0.49	24	0.56	22	0.52
Duchoud 2007		85	0.26	15	0.00	72	0.04	73	0.04	47	0.08	70	0.06
Ezaki 2006		13	0.48	10	0.00	8	0.12	9	0.61	4	0.70	7	0.65
Falvay 1989		62	0.35	80	0.00	52	0.05	53	0.05	56	0.05	73	0.05
Farrell 1958		69	0.34	24	0.00	61	0.05	57	0.05	36	0.16	61	0.09
Ferenczy 1958		88	0.24	35	0.00	87	0.03	80	0.03	41	0.24	65	0.08
Fliere 1977		3	0.53	34	0.00	6	0.19	3	0.68	12	0.59	10	0.63
Fou 1978		33	0.41	72	0.00	46	0.06	49	0.06	36	0.27	57	0.13
Francois 1956		79	0.27	83	0.00	83	0.03	82	0.03	52	0.05	87	0.04
Friedman 1923		63	0.35	11	0.00	71	0.05	55	0.05	54	0.06	77	0.05
Friedman 1923b		70	0.33	82	0.00	73	0.04	72	0.04	63	0.05	86	0.04
Friedman 1930		60	0.36	43	0.00	67	0.05	68	0.05	63	0.05	75	0.05
Garcia 2007		57	0.37	44	0.00	35	0.09	32	0.33	8	0.63	27	0.46
Garcia 2007b		37	0.41	27	0.00	36	0.10	31	0.33	13	0.65	29	0.46
Gierzod 1998		5	0.50	3	0.02	3	0.24	4	0.68	3	0.72	3	0.70
Gornostaeva 1994		53	0.38	75	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	28	0.44	45	0.21
Groot 1988		38	0.41	26	0.00	43	0.06	44	0.12	43	0.11	60	0.11
Harasiewicz 1955		7	0.50	61	0.00	15	0.09	11	0.56	25	0.42	26	0.48
Hatto 1993		23	0.44	67	0.00	26	0.08	15	0.52	20	0.46	25	0.49
Hatto 1997		52	0.38	19	0.00	39	0.10	35	0.29	26	0.34	38	0.31
Horowitz 1949		76	0.30	25	0.00	78	0.03	86	0.03	56	0.05	82	0.04
Indjic 1988		19	0.45	53	0.00	10	0.11	12	0.54	20	0.54	18	0.54
Kapell 1951		28	0.44	5	0.01	32	0.08	28	0.44	22	0.35	32	0.39
Kissin 1993		8	0.49	21	0.00	9	0.10	10	0.56	10	0.75	8	0.65
Kushner 1989		2	0.56	2	0.12	2	0.50	2	0.74	6	0.71	2	0.72
Luisada 1991		66	0.34	88	0.00	76	0.03	77	0.03	52	0.06	78	0.04
Lushtak 2004		11	0.49	45	0.00	11	0.09	8	0.62	5	0.69	9	0.65
Malcuzynski 1961		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Magaloff 1978		12	0.49	22	0.00	7	0.18	7	0.63	3	0.70	6	0.66
Magin 1975		16	0.46	48	0.00	27	0.09	25	0.45	12	0.59	19	0.52
Michalowski 1933		80	0.27	69	0.00	77	0.03	83	0.03	59	0.06	83	0.04
Milkina 1970		65	0.35	84	0.00	58	0.05	59	0.05	44	0.14	64	0.08
Mohovich 1999		31	0.42	38	0.00	34	0.09	26	0.45	23	0.48	28	0.46
Moravec 1969		30	0.43	41	0.00	37	0.09	34	0.33	17	0.44	33	0.38
Morozova 2008		15	0.47	50	0.00	14	0.14	16	0.52	7	0.59	17	0.55
Neighaus 1950		74	0.31	91	0.00	79	0.03	88	0.03	67	0.04	91	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		39	0.41	16	0.00	53	0.06	50	0.06	16	0.46	51	0.17
Ohlsson 1999		32	0.42	73	0.00	51	0.05	62	0.05	46	0.08	69	0.06
Osinska 1989		59	0.36	32	0.00	41	0.08	38	0.22	40	0.20	44	0.21
Pachmann 1927		45	0.39	59	0.00	40	0.07	42	0.16	7	0.61	37	0.31
Paderewski 1930		50	0.39	74	0.00	55	0.05	58	0.05	6	0.65	48	0.18
Perlemuter 1992		44	0.40	37	0.00	62	0.05	54	0.05	24	0.39	54	0.14
Pierdomenico 2008		48	0.39	29	0.00	60	0.06	52	0.06	15	0.53	47	0.18
Poblocka 1999		47	0.39	49	0.00	20	0.07	40	0.18	35	0.29	41	0.23
Rabcewiczowa 1932		71	0.32	77	0.00	65	0.05	56	0.05	45	0.11	67	0.07
Rachmaninoff 1923		61	0.36	36	0.00	63	0.04	69	0.04	43	0.16	63	0.08
Rangell 2001		58	0.37	52	0.00	56	0.05	63	0.05	34	0.38	56	0.14
Richter 1976		9	0.49	6	0.01	12	0.13	14	0.53	16	0.63	11	0.58
Rosen 1989		41	0.40	57	0.00	50	0.05	66	0.05	50	0.05	76	0.05
Rosenthal 1930		82	0.26	78	0.00	88	0.03	79	0.03	74	0.04	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		78	0.29	63	0.00	69	0.04	70	0.04	25	0.47	55	0.14
Rosenthal 1931b		83	0.26	86	0.00	74	0.04	74	0.04	30	0.42	59	0.13
Rosenthal 1931c		68	0.34	60	0.00	64	0.05	65	0.05	22	0.47	53	0.15
Rosenthal 1931d		84	0.26	81	0.00	85	0.03	85	0.03	29	0.29	62	0.09
Rossi 2007		87	0.25	54	0.00	70	0.05	64	0.05	10	0.57	50	0.17
Rubinstein 1939		54	0.38	30	0.00	42	0.10	39	0.20	19	0.46	39	0.30
Rubinstein 1952		29	0.43	47	0.00	28	0.09	20	0.49	22	0.52	24	0.50
Rubinstein 1966		27	0.44	33	0.00	19	0.07	19	0.50	24	0.38	31	0.44
Schilhawsky 1960		35	0.41	14	0.00	21	0.07	37	0.24	7	0.58	34	0.37
Shebanova 2002		10	0.49	7	0.01	17	0.09	13	0.53	19	0.52	20	0.52
Smith 1975		81	0.27	79	0.00	86	0.04	75	0.04	61	0.05	81	0.04
Sokolov 2002		46	0.39	18	0.00	49	0.07	47	0.07	30	0.40	49	0.17
Sztompka 1959		6	0.50	4	0.02	13	0.13	17	0.51	12	0.64	12	0.57
Tomsic 1995		24	0.44	20	0.00	31	0.08	24	0.45	6	0.57	23	0.51
Uninsky 1932		14	0.48	40	0.00	5	0.16	6	0.65	4	0.72	4	0.68
Uninsky 1971		36	0.41	70	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.14	31	0.35	42	0.22
Wasowski 1980		43	0.40	42	0.00	59	0.05	60	0.05	81	0.04	79	0.04
Zak 1937		49	0.39	68	0.00	54	0.06	51	0.06	29	0.30	58	0.13
Zak 1951		34	0.41	39	0.00	48	0.08	46	0.08	19	0.43	46	0.19
Average		1	0.66	1	0.73	1	0.72	1	0.89	12	0.60	1	0.73
Random 1		90	0.00	85	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	27	0.32	71	0.06
Random 2		89	0.04	64	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	39	0.16	84	0.04
Random 3		91	0.00	76	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	6	0.50	68	0.07

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).