Sztompka 1959

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		43	0.38	32	0.00	26	0.08	32	0.34	16	0.51	27	0.42
Anderszewski 2003		71	0.31	70	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	41	0.24	44	0.17
Ashkenazy 1981		9	0.50	16	0.00	14	0.18	13	0.61	14	0.62	8	0.61
Bacha 2000		83	0.24	81	0.00	82	0.04	83	0.04	68	0.04	73	0.04
Badura 1965		77	0.29	71	0.00	73	0.04	71	0.04	58	0.04	82	0.04
Barbosa 1983		41	0.38	29	0.00	40	0.07	38	0.28	40	0.20	38	0.24
Biret 1990		84	0.23	82	0.00	85	0.04	77	0.04	83	0.03	88	0.03
Blet 2003		47	0.37	23	0.00	57	0.05	65	0.05	42	0.17	58	0.09
Block 1995		25	0.41	39	0.00	17	0.15	18	0.55	10	0.61	12	0.58
Blumental 1952		57	0.34	31	0.00	46	0.07	46	0.07	40	0.17	55	0.11
Boshniakovich 1969		32	0.40	41	0.00	38	0.08	33	0.33	41	0.17	39	0.24
Brailowsky 1960		80	0.25	78	0.00	78	0.04	81	0.04	69	0.05	75	0.04
Bunin 1987		51	0.36	13	0.00	62	0.05	61	0.05	49	0.06	70	0.05
Bunin 1987b		56	0.34	14	0.00	63	0.05	59	0.05	52	0.05	67	0.05
Chiu 1999		28	0.41	36	0.00	31	0.06	35	0.32	23	0.30	30	0.31
Cohen 1997		70	0.31	44	0.00	75	0.04	75	0.04	56	0.05	85	0.04
Cortot 1951		61	0.33	66	0.00	48	0.07	47	0.07	16	0.54	43	0.19
Csalog 1996		76	0.29	49	0.00	77	0.05	66	0.05	66	0.05	68	0.05
Czerny 1949		50	0.36	50	0.00	59	0.05	67	0.05	36	0.35	51	0.13
Czerny 1990		2	0.63	2	0.19	2	0.56	2	0.88	2	0.86	1	0.87
Duchoud 2007		75	0.29	74	0.00	76	0.04	68	0.04	64	0.05	81	0.04
Ezaki 2006		64	0.32	72	0.00	69	0.04	79	0.04	62	0.05	72	0.04
Falvay 1989		59	0.33	79	0.00	72	0.04	76	0.04	71	0.04	76	0.04
Farrell 1958		44	0.38	57	0.00	42	0.07	43	0.22	24	0.37	35	0.29
Ferenczy 1958		88	0.16	43	0.00	88	0.03	85	0.03	76	0.04	87	0.03
Fliere 1977		5	0.55	34	0.00	5	0.18	4	0.79	13	0.58	5	0.68
Fou 1978		16	0.47	30	0.00	19	0.16	15	0.58	20	0.50	16	0.54
Francois 1956		78	0.28	84	0.00	80	0.04	82	0.04	66	0.04	86	0.04
Friedman 1923		34	0.40	27	0.00	28	0.08	27	0.38	15	0.60	21	0.48
Friedman 1923b		31	0.40	5	0.01	24	0.08	24	0.42	10	0.64	19	0.52
Friedman 1930		45	0.38	48	0.00	39	0.07	41	0.24	27	0.38	33	0.30
Garcia 2007		65	0.32	88	0.00	47	0.07	49	0.07	26	0.33	47	0.15
Garcia 2007b		52	0.35	51	0.00	50	0.05	58	0.05	28	0.27	52	0.12
Gierzod 1998		49	0.36	54	0.00	41	0.09	40	0.25	39	0.16	40	0.20
Gornostaeva 1994		55	0.35	68	0.00	66	0.05	64	0.05	54	0.06	71	0.05
Groot 1988		22	0.42	37	0.00	22	0.11	22	0.47	28	0.36	28	0.41
Harasiewicz 1955		13	0.49	7	0.01	7	0.16	9	0.67	20	0.48	15	0.57
Hatto 1993		30	0.41	42	0.00	15	0.12	17	0.56	26	0.38	22	0.46
Hatto 1997		58	0.34	18	0.00	34	0.06	39	0.26	40	0.14	42	0.19
Horowitz 1949		37	0.39	19	0.00	53	0.05	60	0.05	24	0.50	45	0.16
Indjic 1988		36	0.39	33	0.00	16	0.12	20	0.51	28	0.38	25	0.44
Kapell 1951		24	0.41	64	0.00	32	0.07	29	0.38	71	0.05	49	0.14
Kissin 1993		4	0.56	10	0.01	4	0.38	3	0.79	4	0.85	2	0.82
Kushner 1989		8	0.51	15	0.00	13	0.21	11	0.66	20	0.45	17	0.54
Luisada 1991		35	0.40	85	0.00	56	0.05	62	0.05	48	0.08	62	0.06
Lushtak 2004		68	0.31	45	0.00	70	0.04	78	0.04	70	0.04	83	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		11	0.50	6	0.01	12	0.18	12	0.64	17	0.51	13	0.57
Magaloff 1978		20	0.43	20	0.00	37	0.09	36	0.32	34	0.25	36	0.28
Magin 1975		39	0.39	47	0.00	60	0.06	50	0.06	49	0.06	63	0.06
Michalowski 1933		72	0.31	65	0.00	64	0.04	72	0.04	29	0.33	54	0.11
Milkina 1970		53	0.35	63	0.00	43	0.10	42	0.23	43	0.15	41	0.19
Mohovich 1999		69	0.31	24	0.00	58	0.06	52	0.06	52	0.05	69	0.05
Moravec 1969		27	0.41	52	0.00	35	0.06	30	0.37	32	0.31	29	0.34
Morozova 2008		14	0.48	4	0.07	10	0.17	14	0.60	13	0.54	14	0.57
Neighaus 1950		15	0.47	12	0.00	18	0.16	16	0.58	5	0.60	10	0.59
Niedzielski 1931		29	0.41	17	0.00	29	0.08	25	0.39	12	0.51	23	0.45
Ohlsson 1999		21	0.43	8	0.01	30	0.07	31	0.37	35	0.25	32	0.30
Osinska 1989		67	0.32	55	0.00	71	0.05	63	0.05	79	0.03	74	0.04
Pachmann 1927		63	0.33	26	0.00	74	0.04	69	0.04	59	0.05	79	0.04
Paderewski 1930		46	0.38	46	0.00	33	0.06	37	0.30	9	0.61	26	0.43
Perlemuter 1992		17	0.46	53	0.00	25	0.08	26	0.39	4	0.64	20	0.50
Pierdomenico 2008		40	0.39	61	0.00	54	0.06	54	0.06	25	0.37	46	0.15
Poblocka 1999		10	0.50	11	0.00	9	0.20	6	0.72	5	0.65	6	0.68
Rabcewiczowa 1932		60	0.33	35	0.00	51	0.05	55	0.05	47	0.07	64	0.06
Rachmaninoff 1923		26	0.41	28	0.00	21	0.09	19	0.51	11	0.55	18	0.53
Rangell 2001		38	0.39	38	0.00	49	0.07	48	0.07	36	0.34	48	0.15
Richter 1976		3	0.59	3	0.15	3	0.32	5	0.78	7	0.75	3	0.76
Rosen 1989		23	0.42	76	0.00	36	0.07	34	0.33	46	0.06	50	0.14
Rosenthal 1930		48	0.37	67	0.00	44	0.08	44	0.16	19	0.58	34	0.30
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.20	59	0.00	83	0.03	84	0.03	53	0.05	80	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		86	0.17	56	0.00	86	0.03	87	0.03	60	0.04	90	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		74	0.30	86	0.00	68	0.04	80	0.04	42	0.16	59	0.08
Rosenthal 1931d		87	0.17	83	0.00	87	0.03	86	0.03	76	0.03	89	0.03
Rossi 2007		81	0.25	69	0.00	81	0.04	74	0.04	33	0.28	53	0.11
Rubinstein 1939		54	0.35	73	0.00	52	0.06	51	0.06	44	0.08	60	0.07
Rubinstein 1952		18	0.45	22	0.00	20	0.09	23	0.47	31	0.43	24	0.45
Rubinstein 1966		19	0.44	60	0.00	23	0.10	21	0.48	39	0.15	37	0.27
Schilhawsky 1960		73	0.31	58	0.00	61	0.05	57	0.05	43	0.11	61	0.07
Shebanova 2002		7	0.52	25	0.00	11	0.15	10	0.67	14	0.54	9	0.60
Smith 1975		66	0.32	80	0.00	67	0.05	56	0.05	54	0.06	66	0.05
Sokolov 2002		62	0.33	87	0.00	65	0.04	70	0.04	47	0.06	65	0.05
Sztompka 1959		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Tomsic 1995		42	0.38	40	0.00	55	0.06	53	0.06	44	0.13	57	0.09
Uninsky 1932		12	0.49	21	0.00	8	0.15	7	0.70	7	0.69	4	0.69
Uninsky 1971		33	0.40	62	0.00	27	0.09	28	0.38	35	0.26	31	0.31
Wasowski 1980		6	0.53	9	0.01	6	0.27	8	0.67	9	0.60	7	0.63
Zak 1937		79	0.28	90	0.00	79	0.04	73	0.04	70	0.04	77	0.04
Zak 1951		82	0.24	75	0.00	84	0.03	88	0.03	62	0.05	78	0.04
Average		1	0.64	1	0.46	1	0.46	1	0.89	26	0.38	11	0.58
Random 1		89	0.02	77	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	9	0.47	56	0.10
Random 2		90	0.00	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	51	0.05	91	0.02
Random 3		91	-0.01	89	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	38	0.16	84	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).