Niedzielski 1931

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		72	0.23	33	0.00	60	0.05	60	0.05	64	0.04	66	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		51	0.29	28	0.00	47	0.04	61	0.04	49	0.07	57	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		2	0.48	2	0.22	2	0.45	2	0.74	13	0.63	1	0.68
Bacha 2000		62	0.25	45	0.00	61	0.05	51	0.05	57	0.05	52	0.05
Badura 1965		60	0.26	10	0.01	35	0.05	43	0.13	40	0.14	36	0.13
Barbosa 1983		23	0.35	72	0.00	46	0.07	46	0.07	60	0.06	51	0.06
Biret 1990		78	0.21	52	0.00	73	0.03	87	0.03	63	0.04	84	0.03
Blet 2003		8	0.40	8	0.02	10	0.09	9	0.55	8	0.56	4	0.55
Block 1995		31	0.34	71	0.00	22	0.10	25	0.34	52	0.06	34	0.14
Blumental 1952		38	0.32	36	0.00	16	0.11	18	0.44	36	0.22	16	0.31
Boshniakovich 1969		24	0.35	18	0.00	41	0.08	34	0.25	71	0.04	44	0.10
Brailowsky 1960		61	0.26	59	0.00	59	0.04	72	0.04	60	0.06	54	0.05
Bunin 1987		46	0.30	44	0.00	43	0.09	41	0.18	46	0.08	40	0.12
Bunin 1987b		44	0.31	64	0.00	42	0.07	39	0.20	49	0.07	37	0.12
Chiu 1999		41	0.32	62	0.00	37	0.06	38	0.20	75	0.04	45	0.09
Cohen 1997		73	0.23	73	0.00	63	0.05	49	0.05	60	0.04	68	0.04
Cortot 1951		86	0.15	66	0.00	86	0.04	67	0.04	87	0.02	85	0.03
Csalog 1996		40	0.32	16	0.01	25	0.07	28	0.32	27	0.25	18	0.28
Czerny 1949		88	0.05	67	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	90	0.01	90	0.01
Czerny 1990		33	0.34	54	0.00	26	0.07	26	0.32	47	0.08	29	0.16
Duchoud 2007		67	0.24	37	0.00	69	0.04	74	0.04	59	0.05	67	0.04
Ezaki 2006		82	0.18	69	0.00	85	0.04	68	0.04	82	0.03	71	0.03
Falvay 1989		53	0.28	43	0.00	30	0.06	40	0.19	68	0.05	43	0.10
Farrell 1958		65	0.25	88	0.00	82	0.04	73	0.04	75	0.03	76	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		84	0.16	86	0.00	83	0.05	59	0.05	63	0.05	59	0.05
Fliere 1977		4	0.42	12	0.01	5	0.20	8	0.55	52	0.06	23	0.18
Fou 1978		37	0.32	74	0.00	53	0.05	55	0.05	86	0.02	77	0.03
Francois 1956		83	0.17	78	0.00	84	0.04	70	0.04	85	0.02	86	0.03
Friedman 1923		21	0.36	22	0.00	14	0.14	17	0.44	25	0.47	9	0.45
Friedman 1923b		17	0.37	20	0.00	13	0.11	15	0.46	25	0.47	7	0.46
Friedman 1930		32	0.34	7	0.02	17	0.14	13	0.50	21	0.51	5	0.50
Garcia 2007		47	0.29	6	0.02	28	0.06	37	0.24	33	0.21	22	0.22
Garcia 2007b		69	0.24	42	0.00	76	0.03	77	0.03	51	0.05	70	0.04
Gierzod 1998		43	0.31	26	0.00	27	0.07	31	0.27	65	0.05	38	0.12
Gornostaeva 1994		70	0.24	50	0.00	68	0.04	71	0.04	79	0.03	82	0.03
Groot 1988		11	0.39	19	0.00	18	0.11	14	0.48	47	0.06	27	0.17
Harasiewicz 1955		25	0.35	75	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	66	0.05	50	0.07
Hatto 1993		10	0.40	9	0.01	4	0.17	4	0.61	32	0.27	12	0.41
Hatto 1997		55	0.28	46	0.00	55	0.06	47	0.06	76	0.04	58	0.05
Horowitz 1949		12	0.39	3	0.07	6	0.16	7	0.57	11	0.59	2	0.58
Indjic 1988		14	0.39	21	0.00	7	0.11	6	0.57	33	0.29	11	0.41
Kapell 1951		18	0.36	4	0.05	9	0.10	22	0.36	42	0.09	24	0.18
Kissin 1993		22	0.35	55	0.00	34	0.06	30	0.29	55	0.07	33	0.14
Kushner 1989		35	0.33	76	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.11	69	0.05	48	0.07
Luisada 1991		13	0.39	11	0.01	19	0.15	11	0.52	31	0.27	13	0.37
Lushtak 2004		74	0.23	41	0.00	78	0.03	85	0.03	64	0.04	81	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		6	0.41	34	0.00	20	0.10	16	0.46	50	0.06	26	0.17
Magaloff 1978		26	0.35	14	0.01	54	0.05	48	0.05	63	0.04	62	0.04
Magin 1975		15	0.38	29	0.00	21	0.09	21	0.38	40	0.19	19	0.27
Michalowski 1933		54	0.28	68	0.00	62	0.04	62	0.04	50	0.07	56	0.05
Milkina 1970		79	0.20	90	0.00	79	0.03	81	0.03	72	0.04	78	0.03
Mohovich 1999		34	0.33	49	0.00	40	0.07	35	0.25	47	0.06	39	0.12
Moravec 1969		30	0.35	30	0.00	33	0.07	23	0.35	49	0.06	31	0.14
Morozova 2008		63	0.25	70	0.00	72	0.03	82	0.03	85	0.03	79	0.03
Neighaus 1950		48	0.29	57	0.00	49	0.05	50	0.05	60	0.05	60	0.05
Niedzielski 1931		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Ohlsson 1999		16	0.38	17	0.01	12	0.12	19	0.39	38	0.23	17	0.30
Osinska 1989		76	0.22	35	0.00	74	0.03	86	0.03	87	0.02	87	0.02
Pachmann 1927		52	0.28	40	0.00	66	0.05	54	0.05	45	0.11	49	0.07
Paderewski 1930		36	0.32	27	0.00	48	0.05	53	0.05	29	0.41	32	0.14
Perlemuter 1992		49	0.29	65	0.00	50	0.05	52	0.05	62	0.05	53	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		75	0.22	58	0.00	81	0.03	78	0.03	77	0.03	73	0.03
Poblocka 1999		59	0.26	89	0.00	67	0.04	63	0.04	79	0.03	72	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		81	0.19	80	0.00	77	0.03	80	0.03	77	0.03	75	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		9	0.40	23	0.00	15	0.11	10	0.53	19	0.46	6	0.49
Rangell 2001		71	0.24	82	0.00	71	0.03	83	0.03	75	0.03	83	0.03
Richter 1976		3	0.46	5	0.05	3	0.17	3	0.63	24	0.50	3	0.56
Rosen 1989		29	0.35	51	0.00	32	0.07	27	0.32	72	0.04	42	0.11
Rosenthal 1930		45	0.30	63	0.00	36	0.06	42	0.15	31	0.41	20	0.25
Rosenthal 1931		77	0.22	32	0.00	57	0.05	57	0.05	27	0.44	30	0.15
Rosenthal 1931b		66	0.25	53	0.00	24	0.08	36	0.24	21	0.53	15	0.36
Rosenthal 1931c		39	0.32	39	0.00	23	0.09	20	0.38	18	0.50	10	0.44
Rosenthal 1931d		80	0.19	79	0.00	58	0.04	75	0.04	35	0.17	47	0.08
Rossi 2007		85	0.16	31	0.00	75	0.04	66	0.04	43	0.17	46	0.08
Rubinstein 1939		64	0.25	81	0.00	80	0.04	69	0.04	72	0.03	74	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		58	0.27	83	0.00	65	0.04	65	0.04	60	0.04	69	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		50	0.29	77	0.00	51	0.05	58	0.05	73	0.03	64	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		68	0.24	56	0.00	70	0.03	84	0.03	58	0.05	65	0.04
Shebanova 2002		7	0.40	25	0.00	8	0.15	5	0.61	41	0.22	14	0.37
Smith 1975		87	0.10	60	0.00	87	0.03	79	0.03	88	0.02	88	0.02
Sokolov 2002		42	0.31	61	0.00	52	0.05	56	0.05	66	0.04	61	0.04
Sztompka 1959		5	0.41	13	0.01	11	0.11	12	0.51	25	0.39	8	0.45
Tomsic 1995		56	0.28	47	0.00	64	0.04	76	0.04	53	0.06	55	0.05
Uninsky 1932		20	0.36	15	0.01	29	0.06	24	0.34	54	0.05	35	0.13
Uninsky 1971		57	0.27	84	0.00	56	0.04	64	0.04	74	0.04	63	0.04
Wasowski 1980		19	0.36	24	0.00	38	0.07	33	0.25	73	0.05	41	0.11
Zak 1937		27	0.35	38	0.00	31	0.06	29	0.32	42	0.15	21	0.22
Zak 1951		28	0.35	48	0.00	39	0.06	32	0.27	44	0.12	25	0.18
Average		1	0.52	1	0.39	1	0.39	1	0.81	82	0.03	28	0.16
Random 1		91	-0.07	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	81	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	0.01	85	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	66	0.04	80	0.03
Random 3		90	-0.06	87	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	70	0.03	89	0.02

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).