Moravec 1969

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		64	0.33	25	0.00	52	0.05	57	0.05	48	0.06	71	0.05
Anderszewski 2003		36	0.40	52	0.00	27	0.07	20	0.37	21	0.51	16	0.43
Ashkenazy 1981		37	0.40	84	0.00	47	0.06	52	0.06	40	0.21	51	0.11
Bacha 2000		76	0.29	58	0.00	78	0.04	72	0.04	49	0.06	66	0.05
Badura 1965		77	0.29	49	0.00	76	0.03	81	0.03	78	0.03	85	0.03
Barbosa 1983		33	0.41	68	0.00	38	0.05	37	0.22	57	0.06	48	0.11
Biret 1990		65	0.33	73	0.00	63	0.05	65	0.05	47	0.07	64	0.06
Blet 2003		63	0.34	74	0.00	62	0.04	67	0.04	52	0.05	77	0.04
Block 1995		19	0.43	22	0.00	8	0.12	11	0.49	23	0.48	14	0.48
Blumental 1952		7	0.46	11	0.01	6	0.24	6	0.63	9	0.67	4	0.65
Boshniakovich 1969		74	0.30	72	0.00	64	0.04	68	0.04	48	0.07	72	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		24	0.42	53	0.00	23	0.06	23	0.33	23	0.52	17	0.41
Bunin 1987		42	0.38	33	0.00	53	0.05	63	0.05	32	0.29	47	0.12
Bunin 1987b		43	0.38	69	0.00	54	0.05	61	0.05	33	0.31	45	0.12
Chiu 1999		34	0.41	7	0.01	11	0.09	33	0.30	21	0.34	25	0.32
Cohen 1997		67	0.32	31	0.00	69	0.05	56	0.05	51	0.06	73	0.05
Cortot 1951		86	0.23	88	0.00	81	0.02	84	0.02	63	0.05	87	0.03
Csalog 1996		55	0.36	79	0.00	60	0.04	69	0.04	35	0.16	57	0.08
Czerny 1949		14	0.44	4	0.02	7	0.19	7	0.57	13	0.72	5	0.64
Czerny 1990		4	0.51	3	0.05	4	0.35	3	0.68	20	0.66	1	0.67
Duchoud 2007		78	0.29	80	0.00	82	0.02	86	0.02	51	0.06	83	0.03
Ezaki 2006		12	0.44	23	0.00	14	0.09	10	0.50	25	0.50	10	0.50
Falvay 1989		3	0.53	2	0.06	3	0.22	4	0.68	6	0.58	6	0.63
Farrell 1958		45	0.38	70	0.00	55	0.05	58	0.05	34	0.21	52	0.10
Ferenczy 1958		58	0.36	40	0.00	61	0.06	54	0.06	17	0.67	37	0.20
Fliere 1977		10	0.45	50	0.00	13	0.08	15	0.47	47	0.10	36	0.22
Fou 1978		17	0.43	34	0.00	21	0.07	29	0.32	33	0.31	26	0.31
Francois 1956		81	0.27	59	0.00	71	0.03	77	0.03	34	0.20	58	0.08
Friedman 1923		82	0.26	32	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	71	0.04	88	0.03
Friedman 1923b		83	0.26	64	0.00	85	0.03	76	0.03	74	0.04	86	0.03
Friedman 1930		80	0.28	90	0.00	70	0.04	74	0.04	66	0.04	78	0.04
Garcia 2007		73	0.30	71	0.00	73	0.03	75	0.03	68	0.04	84	0.03
Garcia 2007b		75	0.29	91	0.00	75	0.03	79	0.03	66	0.05	79	0.04
Gierzod 1998		44	0.38	8	0.01	44	0.05	43	0.13	45	0.10	50	0.11
Gornostaeva 1994		41	0.39	36	0.00	20	0.07	27	0.33	29	0.42	21	0.37
Groot 1988		29	0.41	42	0.00	30	0.07	22	0.36	39	0.17	34	0.25
Harasiewicz 1955		2	0.53	5	0.02	2	0.43	2	0.75	9	0.58	3	0.66
Hatto 1993		13	0.44	77	0.00	16	0.09	16	0.44	43	0.15	31	0.26
Hatto 1997		28	0.42	9	0.01	28	0.06	19	0.38	32	0.25	27	0.31
Horowitz 1949		59	0.36	66	0.00	66	0.04	66	0.04	31	0.37	46	0.12
Indjic 1988		25	0.42	41	0.00	29	0.08	21	0.37	42	0.17	33	0.25
Kapell 1951		11	0.45	24	0.00	24	0.08	31	0.32	37	0.21	30	0.26
Kissin 1993		18	0.43	27	0.00	34	0.09	28	0.33	30	0.48	19	0.40
Kushner 1989		8	0.46	28	0.00	17	0.10	12	0.49	38	0.18	28	0.30
Luisada 1991		31	0.41	62	0.00	40	0.06	44	0.11	62	0.06	55	0.08
Lushtak 2004		60	0.35	39	0.00	65	0.05	62	0.05	43	0.07	61	0.06
Malcuzynski 1961		23	0.43	20	0.00	15	0.09	17	0.44	34	0.33	20	0.38
Magaloff 1978		53	0.36	26	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	60	0.04	59	0.07
Magin 1975		50	0.37	55	0.00	59	0.05	64	0.05	51	0.06	67	0.05
Michalowski 1933		84	0.25	47	0.00	74	0.03	82	0.03	46	0.08	69	0.05
Milkina 1970		5	0.46	54	0.00	5	0.23	5	0.66	11	0.67	2	0.66
Mohovich 1999		52	0.37	6	0.01	46	0.07	47	0.07	59	0.05	62	0.06
Moravec 1969		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Morozova 2008		54	0.36	65	0.00	57	0.05	59	0.05	61	0.05	70	0.05
Neighaus 1950		69	0.30	43	0.00	68	0.07	46	0.07	52	0.05	65	0.06
Niedzielski 1931		61	0.35	37	0.00	49	0.06	49	0.06	23	0.35	44	0.14
Ohlsson 1999		48	0.37	81	0.00	56	0.06	55	0.06	62	0.04	68	0.05
Osinska 1989		39	0.39	78	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.14	69	0.05	56	0.08
Pachmann 1927		85	0.25	82	0.00	87	0.04	71	0.04	71	0.04	76	0.04
Paderewski 1930		87	0.20	86	0.00	80	0.03	83	0.03	55	0.05	75	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		68	0.31	67	0.00	72	0.03	80	0.03	75	0.04	80	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		70	0.30	61	0.00	79	0.04	70	0.04	49	0.05	74	0.04
Poblocka 1999		21	0.43	35	0.00	31	0.07	25	0.33	32	0.31	24	0.32
Rabcewiczowa 1932		46	0.37	29	0.00	41	0.06	39	0.19	31	0.39	29	0.27
Rachmaninoff 1923		20	0.43	10	0.01	10	0.11	9	0.51	6	0.62	7	0.56
Rangell 2001		51	0.37	19	0.00	67	0.06	51	0.06	50	0.06	63	0.06
Richter 1976		35	0.40	85	0.00	39	0.06	40	0.18	43	0.18	40	0.18
Rosen 1989		47	0.37	56	0.00	25	0.07	38	0.21	37	0.18	38	0.19
Rosenthal 1930		16	0.43	12	0.01	32	0.07	26	0.33	10	0.73	12	0.49
Rosenthal 1931		49	0.37	21	0.00	22	0.06	34	0.27	16	0.63	18	0.41
Rosenthal 1931b		62	0.35	51	0.00	50	0.06	50	0.06	19	0.58	39	0.19
Rosenthal 1931c		32	0.41	16	0.01	19	0.08	18	0.41	11	0.61	11	0.50
Rosenthal 1931d		66	0.33	57	0.00	58	0.05	60	0.05	15	0.52	42	0.16
Rossi 2007		88	0.13	89	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	73	0.03	89	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		9	0.45	17	0.00	12	0.09	8	0.54	10	0.56	8	0.55
Rubinstein 1952		38	0.40	15	0.01	51	0.06	53	0.06	47	0.08	60	0.07
Rubinstein 1966		15	0.44	63	0.00	26	0.06	24	0.33	57	0.07	43	0.15
Schilhawsky 1960		79	0.28	45	0.00	77	0.03	78	0.03	71	0.04	82	0.03
Shebanova 2002		26	0.42	13	0.01	33	0.07	35	0.26	73	0.05	49	0.11
Smith 1975		56	0.36	18	0.00	48	0.07	48	0.07	25	0.42	41	0.17
Sokolov 2002		57	0.36	46	0.00	42	0.05	41	0.15	25	0.42	32	0.25
Sztompka 1959		30	0.41	44	0.00	36	0.08	32	0.31	30	0.37	23	0.34
Tomsic 1995		22	0.43	38	0.00	35	0.08	30	0.32	21	0.39	22	0.35
Uninsky 1932		27	0.42	14	0.01	9	0.13	14	0.47	19	0.50	13	0.48
Uninsky 1971		40	0.39	48	0.00	37	0.08	36	0.24	37	0.23	35	0.23
Wasowski 1980		6	0.46	30	0.00	18	0.12	13	0.47	28	0.41	15	0.44
Zak 1937		72	0.30	76	0.00	86	0.04	73	0.04	88	0.03	81	0.03
Zak 1951		71	0.30	83	0.00	83	0.02	85	0.02	82	0.03	90	0.02
Average		1	0.63	1	0.70	1	0.69	1	0.87	34	0.31	9	0.52
Random 1		90	-0.03	60	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	8	0.47	54	0.10
Random 2		89	0.07	75	0.00	89	0.02	87	0.02	5	0.49	53	0.10
Random 3		91	-0.12	87	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	87	0.02	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).