Zak 1937

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		63	0.32	72	0.00	71	0.04	77	0.04	65	0.04	78	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		59	0.33	15	0.00	56	0.05	56	0.05	53	0.07	56	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		21	0.43	9	0.00	28	0.07	32	0.22	45	0.16	34	0.19
Bacha 2000		70	0.30	24	0.00	77	0.04	71	0.04	77	0.03	83	0.03
Badura 1965		73	0.29	73	0.00	54	0.05	59	0.05	39	0.15	51	0.09
Barbosa 1983		6	0.47	55	0.00	11	0.16	8	0.63	15	0.50	9	0.56
Biret 1990		10	0.46	74	0.00	7	0.25	9	0.63	7	0.69	5	0.66
Blet 2003		27	0.41	37	0.00	26	0.10	21	0.39	7	0.57	13	0.47
Block 1995		33	0.40	75	0.00	29	0.07	35	0.20	39	0.19	33	0.19
Blumental 1952		43	0.37	76	0.00	57	0.05	54	0.05	64	0.05	65	0.05
Boshniakovich 1969		3	0.51	13	0.00	3	0.48	3	0.76	4	0.73	2	0.74
Brailowsky 1960		49	0.36	48	0.00	49	0.05	55	0.05	34	0.24	41	0.11
Bunin 1987		45	0.37	38	0.00	36	0.06	39	0.17	29	0.33	30	0.24
Bunin 1987b		50	0.36	56	0.00	38	0.05	40	0.15	29	0.37	29	0.24
Chiu 1999		8	0.46	32	0.00	17	0.15	15	0.50	18	0.47	12	0.48
Cohen 1997		82	0.22	57	0.00	82	0.04	81	0.04	78	0.03	86	0.03
Cortot 1951		86	0.19	39	0.00	87	0.03	85	0.03	86	0.02	90	0.02
Csalog 1996		16	0.44	58	0.00	13	0.17	13	0.52	8	0.53	11	0.52
Czerny 1949		76	0.26	77	0.00	76	0.04	79	0.04	65	0.05	77	0.04
Czerny 1990		54	0.34	40	0.00	61	0.04	78	0.04	82	0.04	80	0.04
Duchoud 2007		53	0.34	78	0.00	66	0.07	48	0.07	41	0.11	50	0.09
Ezaki 2006		51	0.36	59	0.00	53	0.05	60	0.05	68	0.05	61	0.05
Falvay 1989		7	0.47	21	0.00	16	0.14	14	0.51	35	0.26	19	0.36
Farrell 1958		56	0.33	29	0.00	23	0.10	31	0.27	26	0.33	25	0.30
Ferenczy 1958		71	0.29	25	0.00	74	0.03	84	0.03	37	0.36	47	0.10
Fliere 1977		13	0.44	10	0.00	24	0.09	22	0.39	56	0.06	37	0.15
Fou 1978		31	0.40	49	0.00	22	0.08	24	0.38	40	0.21	27	0.28
Francois 1956		80	0.23	79	0.00	79	0.04	75	0.04	57	0.04	82	0.04
Friedman 1923		18	0.43	16	0.00	15	0.17	11	0.60	5	0.73	6	0.66
Friedman 1923b		14	0.44	17	0.00	9	0.11	7	0.64	6	0.72	3	0.68
Friedman 1930		20	0.43	7	0.00	12	0.12	10	0.61	7	0.65	8	0.63
Garcia 2007		44	0.37	50	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.15	27	0.33	32	0.22
Garcia 2007b		57	0.33	41	0.00	55	0.05	62	0.05	65	0.05	68	0.05
Gierzod 1998		40	0.38	4	0.00	46	0.05	53	0.05	51	0.07	59	0.06
Gornostaeva 1994		67	0.30	26	0.00	52	0.05	57	0.05	68	0.04	79	0.04
Groot 1988		61	0.33	80	0.00	63	0.06	52	0.06	60	0.04	66	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		5	0.50	5	0.00	5	0.24	5	0.68	21	0.46	10	0.56
Hatto 1993		32	0.40	2	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.12	61	0.05	52	0.08
Hatto 1997		39	0.38	60	0.00	50	0.07	50	0.07	49	0.05	57	0.06
Horowitz 1949		62	0.33	51	0.00	59	0.04	72	0.04	45	0.11	54	0.07
Indjic 1988		23	0.42	27	0.00	41	0.07	33	0.21	54	0.06	43	0.11
Kapell 1951		11	0.45	30	0.00	8	0.18	16	0.46	20	0.37	16	0.41
Kissin 1993		36	0.39	81	0.00	40	0.06	41	0.15	62	0.06	49	0.09
Kushner 1989		22	0.43	11	0.00	18	0.11	19	0.43	52	0.06	35	0.16
Luisada 1991		15	0.44	6	0.00	25	0.10	23	0.38	30	0.28	23	0.33
Lushtak 2004		9	0.46	31	0.00	6	0.25	6	0.65	8	0.63	7	0.64
Malcuzynski 1961		35	0.39	33	0.00	33	0.06	29	0.30	51	0.06	39	0.13
Magaloff 1978		60	0.33	3	0.00	68	0.08	46	0.08	72	0.03	63	0.05
Magin 1975		29	0.41	82	0.00	21	0.11	20	0.42	25	0.40	15	0.41
Michalowski 1933		69	0.30	61	0.00	60	0.05	64	0.05	10	0.50	36	0.16
Milkina 1970		65	0.31	83	0.00	62	0.04	68	0.04	67	0.04	71	0.04
Mohovich 1999		17	0.44	84	0.00	19	0.12	26	0.35	32	0.37	21	0.36
Moravec 1969		68	0.30	62	0.00	73	0.03	88	0.03	73	0.04	84	0.03
Morozova 2008		72	0.29	52	0.00	65	0.05	63	0.05	70	0.04	76	0.04
Neighaus 1950		37	0.39	28	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	35	0.24	38	0.15
Niedzielski 1931		52	0.35	34	0.00	42	0.06	42	0.15	29	0.32	31	0.22
Ohlsson 1999		28	0.41	63	0.00	20	0.10	18	0.45	31	0.29	20	0.36
Osinska 1989		4	0.50	18	0.00	4	0.25	4	0.71	12	0.62	4	0.66
Pachmann 1927		34	0.39	64	0.00	39	0.05	37	0.18	13	0.53	24	0.31
Paderewski 1930		85	0.21	65	0.00	80	0.05	58	0.05	65	0.04	73	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		64	0.32	35	0.00	64	0.04	76	0.04	52	0.06	62	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		55	0.34	14	0.00	72	0.04	67	0.04	44	0.11	53	0.07
Poblocka 1999		26	0.41	22	0.00	30	0.06	30	0.30	40	0.25	28	0.27
Rabcewiczowa 1932		78	0.24	85	0.00	75	0.04	74	0.04	78	0.03	85	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		58	0.33	66	0.00	67	0.07	49	0.07	53	0.05	55	0.06
Rangell 2001		24	0.42	67	0.00	31	0.06	28	0.31	23	0.48	18	0.39
Richter 1976		38	0.38	68	0.00	51	0.05	61	0.05	59	0.06	64	0.05
Rosen 1989		25	0.41	8	0.00	32	0.06	27	0.32	49	0.05	40	0.13
Rosenthal 1930		87	0.18	86	0.00	88	0.03	87	0.03	88	0.02	88	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		88	0.17	69	0.00	86	0.03	83	0.03	52	0.06	75	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		79	0.23	87	0.00	84	0.04	66	0.04	48	0.06	67	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		83	0.22	23	0.00	85	0.03	86	0.03	87	0.02	91	0.02
Rosenthal 1931d		84	0.22	88	0.00	83	0.04	80	0.04	57	0.05	81	0.04
Rossi 2007		81	0.22	42	0.00	69	0.04	69	0.04	29	0.33	42	0.11
Rubinstein 1939		75	0.26	53	0.00	70	0.05	65	0.05	84	0.03	70	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		42	0.37	89	0.00	37	0.05	38	0.18	56	0.06	48	0.10
Rubinstein 1966		12	0.45	43	0.00	14	0.18	12	0.57	35	0.21	22	0.35
Schilhawsky 1960		30	0.40	19	0.00	27	0.08	25	0.35	9	0.57	14	0.45
Shebanova 2002		19	0.43	70	0.00	10	0.13	17	0.46	42	0.19	26	0.30
Smith 1975		77	0.25	54	0.00	81	0.04	82	0.04	76	0.04	69	0.04
Sokolov 2002		48	0.36	44	0.00	47	0.06	51	0.06	39	0.18	45	0.10
Sztompka 1959		74	0.28	90	0.00	78	0.04	70	0.04	73	0.04	74	0.04
Tomsic 1995		66	0.31	12	0.00	58	0.04	73	0.04	78	0.04	72	0.04
Uninsky 1932		47	0.37	71	0.00	48	0.07	47	0.07	58	0.05	58	0.06
Uninsky 1971		41	0.37	20	0.00	34	0.06	36	0.19	59	0.05	46	0.10
Wasowski 1980		46	0.37	36	0.00	35	0.07	34	0.21	71	0.05	44	0.10
Zak 1937		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Zak 1951		1	0.97	1	1.00	1	0.98	1	1.00	1	1.00	1	1.00
Average		2	0.63	45	0.00	2	0.69	2	0.89	40	0.19	17	0.41
Random 1		90	-0.04	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	65	0.03	89	0.02
Random 2		91	-0.06	46	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	79	0.03	87	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.03	47	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	35	0.20	60	0.06

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).