Uninsky 1971

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		11	0.46	77	0.00	28	0.10	25	0.42	5	0.64	14	0.52
Anderszewski 2003		31	0.42	63	0.00	29	0.12	26	0.41	25	0.48	25	0.44
Ashkenazy 1981		63	0.36	58	0.00	66	0.06	52	0.06	48	0.09	64	0.07
Bacha 2000		47	0.38	32	0.00	26	0.09	33	0.33	8	0.64	21	0.46
Badura 1965		62	0.36	29	0.00	49	0.08	46	0.08	13	0.50	44	0.20
Barbosa 1983		23	0.44	8	0.01	21	0.09	24	0.42	25	0.38	28	0.40
Biret 1990		25	0.43	47	0.00	31	0.11	30	0.35	18	0.57	22	0.45
Blet 2003		67	0.34	62	0.00	70	0.06	57	0.06	49	0.06	66	0.06
Block 1995		58	0.36	36	0.00	53	0.05	63	0.05	42	0.15	61	0.09
Blumental 1952		7	0.47	24	0.00	6	0.14	6	0.66	4	0.75	2	0.70
Boshniakovich 1969		57	0.37	6	0.01	16	0.08	34	0.32	38	0.22	37	0.27
Brailowsky 1960		15	0.46	20	0.00	14	0.10	10	0.58	6	0.73	6	0.65
Bunin 1987		73	0.29	50	0.00	74	0.03	79	0.03	56	0.05	80	0.04
Bunin 1987b		72	0.29	16	0.00	71	0.03	78	0.03	54	0.05	77	0.04
Chiu 1999		60	0.36	61	0.00	64	0.05	64	0.05	47	0.06	70	0.05
Cohen 1997		41	0.40	37	0.00	46	0.05	62	0.05	6	0.68	47	0.18
Cortot 1951		52	0.38	78	0.00	47	0.06	53	0.06	5	0.69	45	0.20
Csalog 1996		70	0.30	43	0.00	83	0.02	85	0.02	67	0.05	86	0.03
Czerny 1949		13	0.46	33	0.00	13	0.09	15	0.52	11	0.74	8	0.62
Czerny 1990		35	0.41	30	0.00	30	0.13	28	0.38	33	0.41	30	0.39
Duchoud 2007		81	0.27	68	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	58	0.05	87	0.03
Ezaki 2006		3	0.51	4	0.01	9	0.20	5	0.66	3	0.72	3	0.69
Falvay 1989		17	0.46	41	0.00	23	0.08	20	0.46	19	0.41	26	0.43
Farrell 1958		68	0.33	34	0.00	58	0.05	65	0.05	42	0.14	62	0.08
Ferenczy 1958		49	0.38	53	0.00	61	0.06	49	0.06	19	0.66	43	0.20
Fliere 1977		19	0.44	23	0.00	22	0.10	17	0.50	48	0.08	42	0.20
Fou 1978		33	0.41	54	0.00	25	0.08	21	0.45	23	0.44	23	0.44
Francois 1956		44	0.39	52	0.00	50	0.06	50	0.06	17	0.59	46	0.19
Friedman 1923		75	0.28	85	0.00	79	0.04	68	0.04	72	0.04	82	0.04
Friedman 1923b		78	0.27	89	0.00	78	0.04	70	0.04	58	0.05	81	0.04
Friedman 1930		77	0.28	76	0.00	77	0.05	67	0.05	65	0.04	79	0.04
Garcia 2007		88	0.20	91	0.00	81	0.02	88	0.02	63	0.05	88	0.03
Garcia 2007b		76	0.28	44	0.00	73	0.03	81	0.03	69	0.04	89	0.03
Gierzod 1998		14	0.46	14	0.00	7	0.17	7	0.66	7	0.65	7	0.65
Gornostaeva 1994		8	0.47	10	0.01	19	0.08	14	0.52	8	0.65	10	0.58
Groot 1988		16	0.46	39	0.00	8	0.20	8	0.61	8	0.56	11	0.58
Harasiewicz 1955		4	0.51	7	0.01	4	0.19	4	0.68	15	0.54	9	0.61
Hatto 1993		21	0.44	18	0.00	11	0.11	11	0.55	23	0.40	20	0.47
Hatto 1997		2	0.51	11	0.00	2	0.28	3	0.69	4	0.70	4	0.69
Horowitz 1949		85	0.24	64	0.00	86	0.03	82	0.03	76	0.03	84	0.03
Indjic 1988		22	0.44	22	0.00	12	0.12	16	0.51	24	0.44	18	0.47
Kapell 1951		37	0.40	28	0.00	43	0.07	40	0.19	45	0.09	52	0.13
Kissin 1993		48	0.38	73	0.00	39	0.06	39	0.20	36	0.40	35	0.28
Kushner 1989		40	0.40	42	0.00	42	0.06	43	0.16	50	0.07	54	0.11
Luisada 1991		51	0.38	79	0.00	62	0.04	73	0.04	55	0.06	67	0.05
Lushtak 2004		59	0.36	48	0.00	65	0.06	48	0.06	56	0.05	75	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		34	0.41	60	0.00	34	0.11	31	0.35	43	0.14	40	0.22
Magaloff 1978		32	0.42	12	0.00	24	0.08	29	0.35	19	0.41	31	0.38
Magin 1975		55	0.37	83	0.00	63	0.04	71	0.04	46	0.07	71	0.05
Michalowski 1933		84	0.24	57	0.00	84	0.03	83	0.03	68	0.05	78	0.04
Milkina 1970		6	0.48	2	0.05	5	0.18	12	0.53	22	0.53	13	0.53
Mohovich 1999		27	0.43	19	0.00	33	0.10	27	0.39	30	0.41	29	0.40
Moravec 1969		42	0.39	31	0.00	35	0.07	37	0.23	36	0.24	38	0.23
Morozova 2008		39	0.40	45	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.13	41	0.17	51	0.15
Neighaus 1950		36	0.41	65	0.00	37	0.07	38	0.21	26	0.37	36	0.28
Niedzielski 1931		79	0.27	82	0.00	69	0.04	74	0.04	64	0.04	76	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		24	0.43	49	0.00	27	0.10	22	0.45	14	0.44	24	0.44
Osinska 1989		9	0.47	26	0.00	15	0.11	13	0.53	23	0.49	15	0.51
Pachmann 1927		87	0.23	86	0.00	87	0.03	80	0.03	70	0.04	85	0.03
Paderewski 1930		86	0.24	59	0.00	80	0.04	76	0.04	50	0.06	72	0.05
Perlemuter 1992		45	0.39	35	0.00	51	0.06	56	0.06	18	0.47	49	0.17
Pierdomenico 2008		83	0.25	90	0.00	88	0.04	75	0.04	76	0.03	83	0.03
Poblocka 1999		28	0.42	71	0.00	41	0.06	42	0.18	39	0.27	39	0.22
Rabcewiczowa 1932		30	0.42	17	0.00	32	0.08	32	0.35	20	0.53	27	0.43
Rachmaninoff 1923		65	0.35	25	0.00	56	0.06	51	0.06	44	0.13	58	0.09
Rangell 2001		66	0.34	80	0.00	60	0.05	61	0.05	37	0.27	53	0.12
Richter 1976		50	0.38	46	0.00	59	0.07	47	0.07	65	0.05	65	0.06
Rosen 1989		18	0.45	66	0.00	17	0.10	18	0.49	13	0.45	19	0.47
Rosenthal 1930		56	0.37	67	0.00	57	0.04	69	0.04	13	0.62	50	0.16
Rosenthal 1931		74	0.29	74	0.00	75	0.03	77	0.03	30	0.42	55	0.11
Rosenthal 1931b		71	0.30	84	0.00	67	0.06	55	0.06	22	0.52	48	0.18
Rosenthal 1931c		69	0.30	38	0.00	76	0.04	72	0.04	40	0.18	63	0.08
Rosenthal 1931d		80	0.27	27	0.00	72	0.03	84	0.03	22	0.41	56	0.11
Rossi 2007		82	0.26	69	0.00	82	0.02	87	0.02	45	0.14	69	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		26	0.43	13	0.00	36	0.07	36	0.23	25	0.37	34	0.29
Rubinstein 1952		20	0.44	51	0.00	20	0.09	19	0.48	20	0.53	17	0.50
Rubinstein 1966		10	0.47	81	0.00	10	0.09	9	0.58	22	0.43	16	0.50
Schilhawsky 1960		61	0.36	40	0.00	68	0.05	66	0.05	36	0.16	60	0.09
Shebanova 2002		43	0.39	21	0.00	54	0.05	60	0.05	66	0.06	73	0.05
Smith 1975		12	0.46	15	0.00	18	0.08	23	0.43	6	0.67	12	0.54
Sokolov 2002		29	0.42	5	0.01	40	0.07	41	0.19	14	0.50	32	0.31
Sztompka 1959		38	0.40	75	0.00	38	0.06	35	0.26	28	0.38	33	0.31
Tomsic 1995		46	0.39	9	0.01	44	0.06	44	0.14	25	0.34	41	0.22
Uninsky 1932		5	0.50	3	0.01	3	0.20	2	0.70	2	0.74	1	0.72
Uninsky 1971		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Wasowski 1980		64	0.36	55	0.00	48	0.06	54	0.06	74	0.05	68	0.05
Zak 1937		54	0.37	72	0.00	52	0.05	59	0.05	36	0.19	57	0.10
Zak 1951		53	0.37	56	0.00	55	0.05	58	0.05	39	0.18	59	0.09
Average		1	0.64	1	0.79	1	0.78	1	0.89	18	0.50	5	0.67
Random 1		90	-0.02	70	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	59	0.04	90	0.02
Random 2		89	0.02	87	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	42	0.14	74	0.05
Random 3		91	-0.07	88	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	59	0.03	91	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).