Wasowski 1980

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		71	0.31	90	0.00	70	0.04	83	0.04	38	0.18	63	0.08
Anderszewski 2003		69	0.31	89	0.00	72	0.06	52	0.06	60	0.05	72	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		55	0.37	76	0.00	66	0.05	56	0.05	64	0.06	76	0.05
Bacha 2000		84	0.16	78	0.00	85	0.05	70	0.05	86	0.02	83	0.03
Badura 1965		76	0.30	39	0.00	69	0.03	84	0.03	34	0.17	64	0.07
Barbosa 1983		26	0.45	34	0.00	9	0.11	17	0.53	13	0.53	17	0.53
Biret 1990		15	0.48	2	0.04	2	0.23	6	0.62	4	0.75	2	0.68
Blet 2003		25	0.45	17	0.00	23	0.09	29	0.39	6	0.59	25	0.48
Block 1995		54	0.37	58	0.00	44	0.05	45	0.09	54	0.06	65	0.07
Blumental 1952		66	0.34	37	0.00	59	0.05	63	0.05	53	0.06	75	0.05
Boshniakovich 1969		41	0.40	48	0.00	30	0.09	30	0.38	36	0.25	33	0.31
Brailowsky 1960		79	0.26	80	0.00	79	0.04	78	0.04	76	0.04	78	0.04
Bunin 1987		40	0.40	49	0.00	47	0.04	77	0.04	23	0.41	49	0.13
Bunin 1987b		43	0.40	44	0.00	45	0.05	43	0.10	19	0.44	41	0.21
Chiu 1999		20	0.46	15	0.00	18	0.10	14	0.55	4	0.65	9	0.60
Cohen 1997		64	0.34	9	0.01	54	0.04	79	0.04	39	0.24	59	0.10
Cortot 1951		77	0.27	18	0.00	68	0.05	57	0.05	38	0.19	60	0.10
Csalog 1996		28	0.44	29	0.00	26	0.08	23	0.49	5	0.58	18	0.53
Czerny 1949		59	0.36	81	0.00	62	0.06	54	0.06	33	0.44	44	0.16
Czerny 1990		4	0.53	12	0.00	7	0.11	8	0.61	21	0.64	8	0.62
Duchoud 2007		51	0.38	16	0.00	42	0.05	42	0.11	14	0.48	38	0.23
Ezaki 2006		75	0.30	74	0.00	76	0.05	66	0.05	65	0.05	69	0.05
Falvay 1989		29	0.44	51	0.00	27	0.09	22	0.49	21	0.39	28	0.44
Farrell 1958		46	0.39	56	0.00	40	0.05	40	0.13	17	0.44	37	0.24
Ferenczy 1958		85	0.15	85	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	74	0.04	84	0.03
Fliere 1977		6	0.50	55	0.00	15	0.11	7	0.62	28	0.39	22	0.49
Fou 1978		48	0.38	46	0.00	46	0.05	61	0.05	66	0.04	80	0.04
Francois 1956		73	0.30	87	0.00	78	0.06	48	0.06	51	0.05	77	0.05
Friedman 1923		32	0.42	21	0.00	25	0.08	27	0.41	6	0.70	16	0.54
Friedman 1923b		30	0.44	11	0.00	22	0.10	24	0.48	5	0.72	11	0.59
Friedman 1930		11	0.49	6	0.01	5	0.19	2	0.68	4	0.78	1	0.73
Garcia 2007		74	0.30	75	0.00	73	0.05	69	0.05	62	0.05	74	0.05
Garcia 2007b		33	0.42	43	0.00	43	0.05	44	0.10	20	0.49	40	0.22
Gierzod 1998		81	0.24	73	0.00	74	0.05	64	0.05	56	0.06	73	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		39	0.40	36	0.00	38	0.05	36	0.21	30	0.37	35	0.28
Groot 1988		14	0.48	60	0.00	19	0.10	11	0.56	11	0.54	15	0.55
Harasiewicz 1955		12	0.48	28	0.00	20	0.11	18	0.52	35	0.30	31	0.39
Hatto 1993		13	0.48	70	0.00	13	0.15	20	0.50	19	0.48	23	0.49
Hatto 1997		18	0.47	14	0.00	16	0.09	15	0.53	16	0.52	20	0.52
Horowitz 1949		31	0.42	30	0.00	37	0.06	39	0.16	13	0.57	34	0.30
Indjic 1988		10	0.49	23	0.00	10	0.15	13	0.55	17	0.56	14	0.55
Kapell 1951		3	0.53	3	0.03	4	0.19	5	0.63	7	0.56	10	0.59
Kissin 1993		17	0.47	38	0.00	11	0.13	21	0.50	14	0.65	13	0.57
Kushner 1989		27	0.44	64	0.00	34	0.11	31	0.38	71	0.04	51	0.12
Luisada 1991		5	0.52	7	0.01	6	0.20	4	0.65	5	0.70	3	0.67
Lushtak 2004		62	0.35	47	0.00	63	0.06	49	0.06	44	0.07	67	0.06
Malcuzynski 1961		45	0.40	61	0.00	55	0.04	81	0.04	60	0.05	81	0.04
Magaloff 1978		35	0.41	50	0.00	36	0.06	37	0.20	37	0.19	42	0.19
Magin 1975		21	0.46	10	0.01	32	0.12	32	0.37	18	0.51	29	0.43
Michalowski 1933		68	0.31	66	0.00	77	0.06	50	0.06	36	0.22	55	0.11
Milkina 1970		38	0.41	41	0.00	29	0.09	25	0.46	24	0.49	26	0.47
Mohovich 1999		80	0.25	72	0.00	81	0.06	47	0.06	87	0.02	85	0.03
Moravec 1969		19	0.46	26	0.00	33	0.14	28	0.41	13	0.47	27	0.44
Morozova 2008		57	0.37	52	0.00	41	0.04	41	0.12	46	0.06	62	0.08
Neighaus 1950		24	0.45	22	0.00	24	0.08	33	0.36	10	0.51	30	0.43
Niedzielski 1931		58	0.36	19	0.00	61	0.05	73	0.05	33	0.25	54	0.11
Ohlsson 1999		8	0.50	20	0.00	8	0.10	3	0.66	2	0.69	4	0.67
Osinska 1989		16	0.48	8	0.01	14	0.12	12	0.56	15	0.59	12	0.57
Pachmann 1927		65	0.34	59	0.00	67	0.04	80	0.04	30	0.35	53	0.12
Paderewski 1930		70	0.31	25	0.00	53	0.06	51	0.06	27	0.43	43	0.16
Perlemuter 1992		52	0.38	69	0.00	64	0.05	55	0.05	31	0.28	50	0.12
Pierdomenico 2008		47	0.39	31	0.00	50	0.05	72	0.05	18	0.48	45	0.15
Poblocka 1999		23	0.45	54	0.00	31	0.11	26	0.46	20	0.51	24	0.48
Rabcewiczowa 1932		72	0.31	77	0.00	71	0.04	75	0.04	57	0.06	70	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		34	0.41	32	0.00	28	0.09	35	0.31	25	0.38	32	0.34
Rangell 2001		42	0.40	53	0.00	48	0.05	68	0.05	25	0.47	46	0.15
Richter 1976		9	0.49	33	0.00	17	0.12	10	0.59	13	0.65	7	0.62
Rosen 1989		36	0.41	13	0.00	35	0.11	34	0.36	31	0.21	36	0.27
Rosenthal 1930		78	0.26	82	0.00	82	0.05	65	0.05	65	0.04	82	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		87	0.09	86	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	89	0.02	87	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		88	0.07	91	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	89	0.02	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		83	0.20	83	0.00	83	0.04	82	0.04	81	0.03	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.11	88	0.00	86	0.03	86	0.03	87	0.02	89	0.02
Rossi 2007		82	0.21	65	0.00	80	0.05	59	0.05	40	0.20	56	0.10
Rubinstein 1939		53	0.37	57	0.00	39	0.07	38	0.18	28	0.26	39	0.22
Rubinstein 1952		37	0.41	63	0.00	51	0.05	60	0.05	52	0.07	68	0.06
Rubinstein 1966		49	0.38	40	0.00	58	0.05	62	0.05	56	0.07	66	0.06
Schilhawsky 1960		63	0.35	42	0.00	65	0.07	46	0.07	29	0.30	48	0.14
Shebanova 2002		7	0.50	5	0.01	12	0.13	16	0.53	21	0.50	21	0.51
Smith 1975		50	0.38	27	0.00	57	0.05	67	0.05	29	0.37	47	0.14
Sokolov 2002		67	0.33	35	0.00	75	0.04	76	0.04	57	0.05	79	0.04
Sztompka 1959		2	0.53	4	0.02	3	0.20	9	0.60	8	0.67	5	0.63
Tomsic 1995		44	0.40	45	0.00	49	0.06	53	0.06	29	0.26	52	0.12
Uninsky 1932		22	0.45	24	0.00	21	0.09	19	0.51	14	0.56	19	0.53
Uninsky 1971		60	0.36	62	0.00	52	0.05	74	0.05	54	0.06	71	0.05
Wasowski 1980		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Zak 1937		56	0.37	71	0.00	56	0.05	71	0.05	34	0.21	57	0.10
Zak 1951		61	0.35	67	0.00	60	0.05	58	0.05	40	0.15	61	0.09
Average		1	0.66	1	0.76	1	0.75	1	0.89	22	0.44	6	0.63
Random 1		90	-0.04	79	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	71	0.02	88	0.02
Random 2		91	-0.04	68	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	89	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		89	0.00	84	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	9	0.47	58	0.10

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).