Rangell 2001

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		60	0.29	85	0.00	57	0.05	57	0.05	84	0.03	71	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		44	0.33	58	0.00	23	0.07	22	0.49	33	0.35	15	0.41
Ashkenazy 1981		62	0.28	60	0.00	80	0.02	88	0.02	77	0.04	84	0.03
Bacha 2000		53	0.30	29	0.00	46	0.06	51	0.06	28	0.27	40	0.13
Badura 1965		67	0.26	64	0.00	56	0.05	60	0.05	57	0.04	72	0.04
Barbosa 1983		11	0.42	2	0.06	8	0.16	8	0.59	46	0.10	24	0.24
Biret 1990		55	0.30	31	0.00	51	0.07	46	0.07	58	0.05	54	0.06
Blet 2003		73	0.26	41	0.00	69	0.04	66	0.04	80	0.03	80	0.03
Block 1995		47	0.32	56	0.00	52	0.05	54	0.05	65	0.04	73	0.04
Blumental 1952		70	0.26	77	0.00	81	0.02	87	0.02	80	0.04	83	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		4	0.44	3	0.05	2	0.32	3	0.66	17	0.55	4	0.60
Brailowsky 1960		65	0.26	75	0.00	73	0.03	76	0.03	72	0.05	62	0.04
Bunin 1987		51	0.31	36	0.00	58	0.06	52	0.06	61	0.05	61	0.05
Bunin 1987b		58	0.29	84	0.00	62	0.04	63	0.04	60	0.05	67	0.04
Chiu 1999		40	0.34	10	0.01	41	0.09	42	0.19	67	0.04	46	0.09
Cohen 1997		37	0.35	46	0.00	33	0.07	32	0.39	23	0.53	12	0.45
Cortot 1951		21	0.39	16	0.01	10	0.16	10	0.57	4	0.69	2	0.63
Csalog 1996		83	0.21	83	0.00	84	0.03	78	0.03	76	0.04	79	0.03
Czerny 1949		22	0.39	4	0.04	5	0.17	6	0.63	19	0.66	1	0.64
Czerny 1990		18	0.39	6	0.02	27	0.07	35	0.36	44	0.14	27	0.22
Duchoud 2007		38	0.35	23	0.00	42	0.08	41	0.19	28	0.31	25	0.24
Ezaki 2006		19	0.39	8	0.01	7	0.15	5	0.64	23	0.51	5	0.57
Falvay 1989		30	0.37	53	0.00	31	0.08	30	0.41	67	0.05	37	0.14
Farrell 1958		7	0.42	33	0.00	6	0.17	7	0.63	7	0.57	3	0.60
Ferenczy 1958		77	0.24	67	0.00	64	0.04	65	0.04	40	0.28	44	0.11
Fliere 1977		32	0.37	54	0.00	30	0.06	26	0.46	57	0.06	31	0.17
Fou 1978		27	0.38	38	0.00	25	0.08	20	0.52	48	0.06	30	0.18
Francois 1956		57	0.29	45	0.00	44	0.08	44	0.17	23	0.43	23	0.27
Friedman 1923		54	0.30	9	0.01	50	0.07	47	0.07	56	0.06	56	0.06
Friedman 1923b		52	0.30	25	0.00	49	0.06	48	0.06	47	0.07	53	0.06
Friedman 1930		69	0.26	37	0.00	67	0.04	69	0.04	72	0.04	69	0.04
Garcia 2007		8	0.42	62	0.00	18	0.09	12	0.55	12	0.56	6	0.55
Garcia 2007b		75	0.25	49	0.00	71	0.04	68	0.04	60	0.05	75	0.04
Gierzod 1998		26	0.38	22	0.00	32	0.08	31	0.41	44	0.11	28	0.21
Gornostaeva 1994		36	0.35	40	0.00	26	0.08	24	0.48	31	0.36	14	0.42
Groot 1988		80	0.23	86	0.00	70	0.05	53	0.05	83	0.03	74	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		3	0.46	14	0.01	4	0.20	2	0.70	31	0.33	11	0.48
Hatto 1993		63	0.27	43	0.00	65	0.03	71	0.03	72	0.04	86	0.03
Hatto 1997		66	0.26	82	0.00	66	0.05	61	0.05	79	0.04	70	0.04
Horowitz 1949		74	0.25	59	0.00	83	0.02	83	0.02	81	0.03	89	0.02
Indjic 1988		72	0.26	66	0.00	68	0.05	56	0.05	75	0.04	68	0.04
Kapell 1951		5	0.43	7	0.02	17	0.07	21	0.50	55	0.06	32	0.17
Kissin 1993		41	0.34	68	0.00	53	0.05	59	0.05	74	0.05	58	0.05
Kushner 1989		13	0.40	26	0.00	19	0.08	14	0.55	43	0.10	26	0.23
Luisada 1991		59	0.29	63	0.00	72	0.03	79	0.03	75	0.04	76	0.03
Lushtak 2004		12	0.41	19	0.00	9	0.12	9	0.59	21	0.50	7	0.54
Malcuzynski 1961		28	0.37	34	0.00	34	0.09	34	0.38	63	0.05	38	0.14
Magaloff 1978		45	0.33	39	0.00	55	0.06	49	0.06	77	0.03	64	0.04
Magin 1975		85	0.20	90	0.00	85	0.02	84	0.02	82	0.03	88	0.02
Michalowski 1933		88	0.14	80	0.00	88	0.03	74	0.03	77	0.03	78	0.03
Milkina 1970		35	0.36	61	0.00	15	0.07	18	0.53	32	0.36	13	0.44
Mohovich 1999		25	0.38	18	0.00	14	0.07	19	0.53	39	0.25	20	0.36
Moravec 1969		31	0.37	27	0.00	47	0.06	50	0.06	51	0.06	51	0.06
Morozova 2008		23	0.38	15	0.01	16	0.06	15	0.54	37	0.26	18	0.37
Neighaus 1950		6	0.43	20	0.00	11	0.18	11	0.55	8	0.53	8	0.54
Niedzielski 1931		79	0.24	87	0.00	76	0.03	75	0.03	83	0.03	77	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		43	0.34	35	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	60	0.04	49	0.07
Osinska 1989		17	0.40	73	0.00	12	0.09	13	0.55	35	0.26	17	0.38
Pachmann 1927		49	0.32	51	0.00	54	0.05	58	0.05	38	0.17	47	0.09
Paderewski 1930		61	0.28	76	0.00	48	0.05	55	0.05	35	0.34	41	0.13
Perlemuter 1992		56	0.30	89	0.00	63	0.04	70	0.04	48	0.06	57	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		50	0.31	74	0.00	75	0.03	77	0.03	51	0.05	66	0.04
Poblocka 1999		24	0.38	44	0.00	36	0.12	33	0.39	58	0.05	36	0.14
Rabcewiczowa 1932		33	0.37	30	0.00	21	0.10	17	0.54	22	0.51	10	0.52
Rachmaninoff 1923		81	0.23	91	0.00	82	0.03	73	0.03	85	0.02	87	0.02
Rangell 2001		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Richter 1976		29	0.37	57	0.00	39	0.08	39	0.23	62	0.05	43	0.11
Rosen 1989		14	0.40	13	0.01	20	0.09	16	0.54	38	0.17	22	0.30
Rosenthal 1930		71	0.26	17	0.01	87	0.03	72	0.03	73	0.04	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		84	0.20	28	0.00	78	0.02	81	0.02	44	0.15	59	0.05
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.22	88	0.00	77	0.02	82	0.02	42	0.17	55	0.06
Rosenthal 1931c		68	0.26	65	0.00	61	0.04	64	0.04	45	0.12	50	0.07
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.20	78	0.00	86	0.02	85	0.02	56	0.05	85	0.03
Rossi 2007		87	0.19	79	0.00	74	0.02	80	0.02	39	0.20	52	0.06
Rubinstein 1939		39	0.35	52	0.00	24	0.08	28	0.45	27	0.29	19	0.36
Rubinstein 1952		48	0.32	47	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.17	58	0.05	48	0.09
Rubinstein 1966		2	0.47	12	0.01	3	0.19	4	0.66	23	0.43	9	0.53
Schilhawsky 1960		76	0.25	81	0.00	79	0.02	86	0.02	66	0.04	81	0.03
Shebanova 2002		10	0.42	5	0.02	13	0.08	27	0.45	63	0.06	33	0.16
Smith 1975		78	0.24	48	0.00	60	0.04	67	0.04	58	0.05	65	0.04
Sokolov 2002		64	0.27	32	0.00	59	0.04	62	0.04	58	0.05	63	0.04
Sztompka 1959		20	0.39	11	0.01	35	0.09	36	0.34	48	0.07	35	0.15
Tomsic 1995		46	0.33	70	0.00	37	0.08	38	0.26	50	0.08	39	0.14
Uninsky 1932		34	0.37	42	0.00	40	0.10	40	0.23	70	0.04	45	0.10
Uninsky 1971		42	0.34	71	0.00	38	0.08	37	0.27	61	0.05	42	0.12
Wasowski 1980		15	0.40	24	0.00	28	0.09	25	0.47	68	0.05	34	0.15
Zak 1937		9	0.42	21	0.00	22	0.08	23	0.48	28	0.31	16	0.39
Zak 1951		16	0.40	50	0.00	29	0.10	29	0.43	27	0.27	21	0.34
Average		1	0.56	1	0.64	1	0.63	1	0.84	65	0.05	29	0.20
Random 1		91	-0.08	72	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	80	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	0.03	69	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	44	0.13	60	0.05
Random 3		90	-0.06	55	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	72	0.03	90	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).