Rosenthal 1931c

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		18	0.35	70	0.00	21	0.10	19	0.49	33	0.27	17	0.36
Anderszewski 2003		33	0.32	9	0.00	36	0.05	30	0.25	59	0.05	31	0.11
Ashkenazy 1981		42	0.30	55	0.00	56	0.05	61	0.05	62	0.06	56	0.05
Bacha 2000		35	0.32	61	0.00	52	0.05	55	0.05	43	0.15	39	0.09
Badura 1965		66	0.25	62	0.00	65	0.03	70	0.03	76	0.03	83	0.03
Barbosa 1983		65	0.25	78	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	87	0.02	89	0.02
Biret 1990		76	0.22	13	0.00	75	0.03	72	0.03	73	0.04	84	0.03
Blet 2003		50	0.28	19	0.00	55	0.05	56	0.05	60	0.04	64	0.04
Block 1995		46	0.30	21	0.00	40	0.08	32	0.24	72	0.04	37	0.10
Blumental 1952		22	0.34	39	0.00	19	0.11	21	0.48	55	0.06	22	0.17
Boshniakovich 1969		58	0.26	56	0.00	60	0.05	58	0.05	64	0.05	55	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		13	0.37	11	0.00	16	0.12	15	0.54	24	0.50	8	0.52
Bunin 1987		54	0.27	86	0.00	59	0.05	54	0.05	71	0.04	68	0.04
Bunin 1987b		55	0.27	82	0.00	58	0.04	66	0.04	75	0.03	74	0.03
Chiu 1999		32	0.32	57	0.00	28	0.05	29	0.26	76	0.04	35	0.10
Cohen 1997		34	0.32	47	0.00	23	0.14	24	0.43	30	0.47	14	0.45
Cortot 1951		26	0.33	43	0.00	34	0.06	41	0.16	26	0.34	18	0.23
Csalog 1996		51	0.28	79	0.00	35	0.06	43	0.15	50	0.07	36	0.10
Czerny 1949		48	0.28	35	0.00	45	0.07	44	0.14	46	0.08	33	0.11
Czerny 1990		53	0.27	50	0.00	50	0.05	57	0.05	62	0.05	58	0.05
Duchoud 2007		85	0.19	44	0.00	72	0.04	69	0.04	65	0.05	66	0.04
Ezaki 2006		6	0.42	30	0.00	8	0.28	6	0.71	19	0.55	5	0.62
Falvay 1989		16	0.36	27	0.00	24	0.12	23	0.44	50	0.06	23	0.16
Farrell 1958		67	0.25	23	0.00	71	0.04	64	0.04	76	0.03	73	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		15	0.36	40	0.00	14	0.13	17	0.50	22	0.62	7	0.56
Fliere 1977		11	0.38	42	0.00	11	0.13	10	0.62	58	0.05	20	0.18
Fou 1978		36	0.31	14	0.00	46	0.06	47	0.06	69	0.04	49	0.05
Francois 1956		61	0.26	80	0.00	43	0.06	39	0.18	35	0.19	21	0.18
Friedman 1923		72	0.24	48	0.00	68	0.03	73	0.03	52	0.06	70	0.04
Friedman 1923b		71	0.24	88	0.00	69	0.05	60	0.05	49	0.06	57	0.05
Friedman 1930		70	0.24	51	0.00	61	0.06	48	0.06	61	0.05	54	0.05
Garcia 2007		82	0.20	41	0.00	76	0.03	79	0.03	74	0.04	82	0.03
Garcia 2007b		88	0.15	52	0.00	84	0.02	83	0.02	84	0.03	91	0.02
Gierzod 1998		8	0.41	16	0.00	6	0.19	12	0.58	24	0.39	11	0.48
Gornostaeva 1994		43	0.30	83	0.00	32	0.06	28	0.28	62	0.05	28	0.12
Groot 1988		28	0.32	71	0.00	22	0.15	20	0.48	63	0.04	26	0.14
Harasiewicz 1955		41	0.30	34	0.00	47	0.05	52	0.05	81	0.04	69	0.04
Hatto 1993		24	0.34	38	0.00	31	0.06	31	0.25	71	0.04	38	0.10
Hatto 1997		20	0.35	4	0.00	25	0.08	26	0.33	74	0.04	32	0.11
Horowitz 1949		73	0.23	33	0.00	70	0.04	62	0.04	52	0.06	52	0.05
Indjic 1988		37	0.31	29	0.00	48	0.05	53	0.05	80	0.04	63	0.04
Kapell 1951		75	0.23	84	0.00	82	0.02	85	0.02	81	0.03	86	0.02
Kissin 1993		80	0.21	63	0.00	83	0.02	86	0.02	78	0.04	79	0.03
Kushner 1989		25	0.33	58	0.00	29	0.06	34	0.23	67	0.05	30	0.11
Luisada 1991		57	0.26	66	0.00	57	0.04	65	0.04	79	0.04	59	0.04
Lushtak 2004		47	0.29	69	0.00	39	0.06	35	0.22	72	0.04	41	0.09
Malcuzynski 1961		23	0.34	45	0.00	15	0.11	22	0.47	65	0.05	25	0.15
Magaloff 1978		7	0.41	49	0.00	10	0.23	7	0.66	26	0.34	12	0.47
Magin 1975		69	0.24	81	0.00	67	0.03	75	0.03	47	0.06	62	0.04
Michalowski 1933		87	0.16	85	0.00	88	0.03	77	0.03	81	0.03	78	0.03
Milkina 1970		52	0.28	64	0.00	54	0.06	46	0.06	74	0.04	50	0.05
Mohovich 1999		12	0.38	24	0.00	12	0.21	8	0.64	37	0.31	13	0.45
Moravec 1969		9	0.41	15	0.00	9	0.24	11	0.61	18	0.41	9	0.50
Morozova 2008		29	0.32	7	0.00	30	0.06	38	0.18	76	0.04	46	0.08
Neighaus 1950		31	0.32	20	0.00	26	0.08	25	0.38	61	0.05	27	0.14
Niedzielski 1931		30	0.32	25	0.00	20	0.11	18	0.50	20	0.38	16	0.44
Ohlsson 1999		56	0.27	87	0.00	62	0.05	51	0.05	50	0.05	53	0.05
Osinska 1989		45	0.30	77	0.00	51	0.05	59	0.05	81	0.03	60	0.04
Pachmann 1927		77	0.22	72	0.00	81	0.02	88	0.02	76	0.04	77	0.03
Paderewski 1930		81	0.20	91	0.00	77	0.03	71	0.03	71	0.04	76	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		83	0.20	74	0.00	73	0.03	76	0.03	77	0.04	72	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		79	0.22	65	0.00	86	0.02	84	0.02	84	0.03	85	0.02
Poblocka 1999		68	0.25	89	0.00	53	0.06	49	0.06	75	0.04	48	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		10	0.40	10	0.00	7	0.26	9	0.64	14	0.59	6	0.61
Rachmaninoff 1923		19	0.35	8	0.00	13	0.17	13	0.56	29	0.34	15	0.44
Rangell 2001		59	0.26	31	0.00	41	0.06	45	0.12	64	0.04	47	0.07
Richter 1976		63	0.25	59	0.00	79	0.04	67	0.04	84	0.03	75	0.03
Rosen 1989		14	0.37	18	0.00	18	0.11	16	0.52	52	0.05	24	0.16
Rosenthal 1930		4	0.61	6	0.00	4	0.69	4	0.91	2	0.90	4	0.90
Rosenthal 1931		3	0.71	2	0.18	2	0.54	3	0.95	3	0.97	2	0.96
Rosenthal 1931b		1	0.76	1	0.66	1	0.65	1	0.97	3	0.97	1	0.97
Rosenthal 1931c		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosenthal 1931d		2	0.71	3	0.12	3	0.89	2	0.95	3	0.97	3	0.96
Rossi 2007		86	0.17	90	0.00	78	0.03	78	0.03	50	0.06	61	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		27	0.33	28	0.00	38	0.07	36	0.21	56	0.04	40	0.09
Rubinstein 1952		40	0.30	75	0.00	27	0.06	27	0.32	68	0.04	34	0.11
Rubinstein 1966		21	0.35	53	0.00	37	0.06	33	0.24	78	0.03	45	0.08
Schilhawsky 1960		62	0.25	73	0.00	66	0.03	74	0.03	83	0.03	80	0.03
Shebanova 2002		60	0.26	67	0.00	63	0.04	63	0.04	70	0.05	65	0.04
Smith 1975		17	0.36	12	0.00	17	0.16	14	0.56	26	0.41	10	0.48
Sokolov 2002		38	0.30	26	0.00	33	0.06	37	0.20	48	0.06	29	0.11
Sztompka 1959		44	0.30	36	0.00	44	0.07	42	0.16	80	0.04	43	0.08
Tomsic 1995		49	0.28	46	0.00	49	0.06	50	0.06	74	0.04	51	0.05
Uninsky 1932		64	0.25	37	0.00	64	0.04	68	0.04	75	0.03	81	0.03
Uninsky 1971		39	0.30	32	0.00	42	0.05	40	0.18	72	0.04	44	0.08
Wasowski 1980		84	0.20	60	0.00	87	0.03	81	0.03	82	0.04	71	0.03
Zak 1937		78	0.22	22	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	86	0.03	87	0.02
Zak 1951		74	0.23	17	0.00	80	0.02	82	0.02	86	0.03	88	0.02
Average		5	0.53	5	0.00	5	0.57	5	0.87	78	0.04	19	0.19
Random 1		90	-0.01	76	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	17	0.42	42	0.09
Random 2		89	0.00	54	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	63	0.04	90	0.02
Random 3		91	-0.02	68	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	36	0.18	67	0.04

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).