Richter 1976

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		75	0.30	67	0.00	80	0.04	80	0.04	87	0.03	83	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		52	0.38	40	0.00	41	0.07	40	0.21	37	0.29	41	0.25
Ashkenazy 1981		7	0.54	5	0.01	10	0.16	17	0.61	8	0.67	14	0.64
Bacha 2000		79	0.29	65	0.00	75	0.04	82	0.04	58	0.05	76	0.04
Badura 1965		71	0.32	74	0.00	68	0.05	64	0.05	41	0.13	57	0.08
Barbosa 1983		29	0.45	66	0.00	27	0.09	26	0.48	34	0.26	31	0.35
Biret 1990		73	0.30	75	0.00	76	0.04	73	0.04	71	0.04	81	0.04
Blet 2003		42	0.39	43	0.00	63	0.05	60	0.05	41	0.20	54	0.10
Block 1995		22	0.48	56	0.00	23	0.11	21	0.56	11	0.59	19	0.57
Blumental 1952		66	0.34	85	0.00	64	0.06	51	0.06	47	0.07	63	0.06
Boshniakovich 1969		18	0.50	70	0.00	13	0.14	10	0.70	12	0.63	12	0.66
Brailowsky 1960		74	0.30	69	0.00	73	0.06	54	0.06	62	0.05	66	0.05
Bunin 1987		68	0.33	71	0.00	47	0.08	47	0.08	35	0.22	47	0.13
Bunin 1987b		70	0.32	73	0.00	42	0.08	42	0.20	32	0.32	40	0.25
Chiu 1999		17	0.50	32	0.00	25	0.08	27	0.48	12	0.52	23	0.50
Cohen 1997		81	0.26	61	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	75	0.03	85	0.03
Cortot 1951		77	0.29	55	0.00	62	0.05	66	0.05	46	0.09	60	0.07
Csalog 1996		31	0.44	53	0.00	36	0.07	34	0.30	18	0.42	32	0.35
Czerny 1949		78	0.29	24	0.00	74	0.04	75	0.04	49	0.07	72	0.05
Czerny 1990		5	0.57	2	0.19	2	0.36	3	0.82	4	0.83	1	0.82
Duchoud 2007		50	0.38	49	0.00	49	0.06	50	0.06	13	0.51	45	0.17
Ezaki 2006		57	0.37	68	0.00	54	0.04	74	0.04	63	0.05	75	0.04
Falvay 1989		56	0.37	51	0.00	56	0.04	78	0.04	74	0.04	77	0.04
Farrell 1958		64	0.34	44	0.00	55	0.04	76	0.04	46	0.09	61	0.06
Ferenczy 1958		88	0.10	80	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	86	0.02	89	0.02
Fliere 1977		2	0.61	15	0.00	4	0.30	2	0.82	5	0.74	3	0.78
Fou 1978		19	0.49	57	0.00	22	0.10	19	0.59	16	0.54	21	0.56
Francois 1956		84	0.21	64	0.00	85	0.04	81	0.04	88	0.02	88	0.03
Friedman 1923		35	0.41	11	0.01	31	0.11	38	0.24	21	0.49	34	0.34
Friedman 1923b		36	0.41	21	0.00	30	0.08	33	0.30	17	0.56	28	0.41
Friedman 1930		32	0.43	16	0.00	29	0.10	31	0.35	19	0.52	25	0.43
Garcia 2007		51	0.38	54	0.00	35	0.07	32	0.34	13	0.55	26	0.43
Garcia 2007b		63	0.34	18	0.00	40	0.07	41	0.20	26	0.39	39	0.28
Gierzod 1998		44	0.39	81	0.00	38	0.07	36	0.27	66	0.05	48	0.12
Gornostaeva 1994		58	0.36	83	0.00	65	0.05	67	0.05	67	0.04	80	0.04
Groot 1988		26	0.46	35	0.00	21	0.13	25	0.50	19	0.42	24	0.46
Harasiewicz 1955		12	0.51	22	0.00	16	0.11	22	0.55	33	0.32	27	0.42
Hatto 1993		28	0.45	59	0.00	24	0.09	23	0.50	33	0.25	33	0.35
Hatto 1997		69	0.32	76	0.00	72	0.06	58	0.06	82	0.04	71	0.05
Horowitz 1949		55	0.37	45	0.00	60	0.05	63	0.05	29	0.37	46	0.14
Indjic 1988		34	0.42	89	0.00	32	0.08	30	0.38	38	0.22	37	0.29
Kapell 1951		10	0.53	7	0.01	7	0.18	6	0.76	3	0.65	7	0.70
Kissin 1993		6	0.55	12	0.01	6	0.25	5	0.78	5	0.83	2	0.80
Kushner 1989		4	0.58	4	0.02	5	0.26	4	0.80	4	0.73	4	0.76
Luisada 1991		38	0.41	46	0.00	59	0.08	46	0.08	49	0.07	58	0.07
Lushtak 2004		43	0.39	23	0.00	46	0.06	55	0.06	31	0.25	49	0.12
Malcuzynski 1961		21	0.49	6	0.01	12	0.15	16	0.63	14	0.53	18	0.58
Magaloff 1978		14	0.51	39	0.00	14	0.15	12	0.66	5	0.66	10	0.66
Magin 1975		9	0.53	9	0.01	8	0.18	11	0.68	8	0.66	9	0.67
Michalowski 1933		61	0.35	10	0.01	44	0.07	44	0.15	8	0.57	36	0.29
Milkina 1970		76	0.29	48	0.00	67	0.05	69	0.05	70	0.04	79	0.04
Mohovich 1999		45	0.39	50	0.00	58	0.06	57	0.06	81	0.04	74	0.05
Moravec 1969		39	0.40	82	0.00	43	0.09	43	0.18	40	0.18	43	0.18
Morozova 2008		13	0.51	25	0.00	9	0.18	8	0.75	3	0.65	8	0.70
Neighaus 1950		40	0.40	31	0.00	52	0.05	70	0.05	43	0.17	56	0.09
Niedzielski 1931		25	0.46	17	0.00	26	0.10	24	0.50	3	0.63	20	0.56
Ohlsson 1999		15	0.50	20	0.00	19	0.17	20	0.56	9	0.53	22	0.54
Osinska 1989		37	0.41	60	0.00	53	0.05	71	0.05	63	0.05	65	0.05
Pachmann 1927		16	0.50	26	0.00	20	0.13	15	0.64	1	0.81	6	0.72
Paderewski 1930		46	0.39	52	0.00	39	0.07	39	0.22	11	0.60	30	0.36
Perlemuter 1992		59	0.36	79	0.00	71	0.05	68	0.05	59	0.05	64	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		33	0.42	47	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.13	20	0.45	42	0.24
Poblocka 1999		24	0.47	14	0.00	18	0.14	18	0.59	13	0.59	17	0.59
Rabcewiczowa 1932		82	0.25	33	0.00	81	0.04	77	0.04	74	0.04	78	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		47	0.38	78	0.00	48	0.06	52	0.06	42	0.17	53	0.10
Rangell 2001		54	0.37	19	0.00	61	0.05	62	0.05	39	0.23	52	0.11
Richter 1976		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosen 1989		23	0.48	30	0.00	28	0.11	28	0.43	20	0.38	29	0.40
Rosenthal 1930		72	0.31	62	0.00	79	0.05	61	0.05	59	0.05	73	0.05
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.18	77	0.00	83	0.04	83	0.04	77	0.03	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		86	0.15	90	0.00	86	0.03	86	0.03	84	0.03	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		83	0.25	63	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	67	0.04	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		87	0.11	91	0.00	87	0.03	87	0.03	85	0.02	91	0.02
Rossi 2007		80	0.28	88	0.00	78	0.04	79	0.04	30	0.31	50	0.11
Rubinstein 1939		60	0.36	58	0.00	57	0.06	56	0.06	55	0.04	69	0.05
Rubinstein 1952		30	0.44	37	0.00	37	0.08	35	0.28	38	0.28	38	0.28
Rubinstein 1966		27	0.45	38	0.00	33	0.07	29	0.40	58	0.07	44	0.17
Schilhawsky 1960		62	0.35	13	0.01	34	0.07	37	0.25	25	0.35	35	0.30
Shebanova 2002		8	0.54	34	0.00	15	0.17	9	0.71	11	0.60	13	0.65
Smith 1975		67	0.33	42	0.00	77	0.06	53	0.06	73	0.04	68	0.05
Sokolov 2002		65	0.34	41	0.00	69	0.05	72	0.05	49	0.06	67	0.05
Sztompka 1959		3	0.59	3	0.18	3	0.29	7	0.75	5	0.78	5	0.76
Tomsic 1995		41	0.40	29	0.00	50	0.06	49	0.06	33	0.22	51	0.11
Uninsky 1932		11	0.51	8	0.01	11	0.14	14	0.64	8	0.68	11	0.66
Uninsky 1971		49	0.38	84	0.00	51	0.05	65	0.05	47	0.07	62	0.06
Wasowski 1980		20	0.49	28	0.00	17	0.14	13	0.65	10	0.59	15	0.62
Zak 1937		48	0.38	72	0.00	66	0.06	59	0.06	61	0.05	70	0.05
Zak 1951		53	0.37	86	0.00	70	0.07	48	0.07	46	0.08	59	0.07
Average		1	0.67	1	0.46	1	0.46	1	0.88	24	0.43	16	0.62
Random 1		91	-0.03	36	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	41	0.10	84	0.03
Random 2		90	-0.02	87	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	68	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		89	0.00	27	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	10	0.43	55	0.09

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).