Zak 1951

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	79	0.00	75	0.04	75	0.04	74	0.03	85	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		51	0.35	42	0.00	51	0.05	58	0.05	46	0.08	59	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		19	0.43	12	0.00	26	0.07	35	0.20	47	0.10	36	0.14
Bacha 2000		60	0.32	31	0.00	71	0.04	67	0.04	50	0.06	62	0.05
Badura 1965		69	0.30	80	0.00	49	0.05	54	0.05	36	0.16	49	0.09
Barbosa 1983		6	0.47	28	0.00	8	0.13	8	0.62	17	0.48	8	0.55
Biret 1990		9	0.46	81	0.00	5	0.22	5	0.66	5	0.73	3	0.69
Blet 2003		34	0.39	82	0.00	29	0.06	26	0.30	14	0.50	19	0.39
Block 1995		35	0.39	32	0.00	38	0.06	36	0.19	45	0.12	35	0.15
Blumental 1952		37	0.38	23	0.00	56	0.06	47	0.06	48	0.07	60	0.06
Boshniakovich 1969		3	0.51	3	0.00	3	0.41	3	0.77	6	0.71	2	0.74
Brailowsky 1960		48	0.36	33	0.00	55	0.05	51	0.05	36	0.21	44	0.10
Bunin 1987		43	0.37	18	0.00	27	0.07	33	0.20	25	0.37	26	0.27
Bunin 1987b		47	0.37	58	0.00	28	0.06	38	0.19	20	0.42	24	0.28
Chiu 1999		10	0.46	59	0.00	18	0.10	17	0.44	20	0.38	15	0.41
Cohen 1997		81	0.24	83	0.00	81	0.04	66	0.04	58	0.04	78	0.04
Cortot 1951		87	0.18	60	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	83	0.02	89	0.02
Csalog 1996		14	0.44	17	0.00	12	0.20	12	0.51	6	0.54	10	0.52
Czerny 1949		76	0.27	2	0.00	73	0.03	85	0.03	58	0.05	77	0.04
Czerny 1990		68	0.31	61	0.00	74	0.04	69	0.04	53	0.06	69	0.05
Duchoud 2007		58	0.33	84	0.00	65	0.05	61	0.05	56	0.06	68	0.05
Ezaki 2006		39	0.38	43	0.00	47	0.06	50	0.06	54	0.07	57	0.06
Falvay 1989		8	0.47	7	0.00	14	0.12	11	0.52	31	0.31	17	0.40
Farrell 1958		55	0.33	62	0.00	25	0.10	30	0.24	28	0.31	25	0.27
Ferenczy 1958		71	0.30	34	0.00	77	0.04	73	0.04	35	0.38	40	0.12
Fliere 1977		21	0.42	44	0.00	39	0.06	37	0.19	74	0.04	47	0.09
Fou 1978		32	0.39	24	0.00	35	0.06	32	0.21	49	0.06	42	0.11
Francois 1956		77	0.26	29	0.00	69	0.04	76	0.04	53	0.04	81	0.04
Friedman 1923		27	0.41	19	0.00	23	0.11	20	0.43	12	0.62	11	0.52
Friedman 1923b		24	0.41	85	0.00	21	0.10	16	0.45	13	0.62	9	0.53
Friedman 1930		17	0.43	15	0.00	11	0.14	9	0.55	8	0.65	6	0.60
Garcia 2007		44	0.37	13	0.00	40	0.06	34	0.20	24	0.35	27	0.26
Garcia 2007b		56	0.33	45	0.00	50	0.04	64	0.04	41	0.13	56	0.07
Gierzod 1998		30	0.40	9	0.00	32	0.06	28	0.25	69	0.05	43	0.11
Gornostaeva 1994		62	0.32	35	0.00	42	0.05	45	0.11	56	0.05	55	0.07
Groot 1988		57	0.33	63	0.00	59	0.05	53	0.05	72	0.04	80	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		5	0.49	20	0.00	7	0.21	7	0.64	28	0.38	12	0.49
Hatto 1993		31	0.40	36	0.00	46	0.05	52	0.05	56	0.07	61	0.06
Hatto 1997		38	0.38	64	0.00	53	0.05	57	0.05	68	0.04	75	0.04
Horowitz 1949		67	0.31	10	0.00	63	0.04	71	0.04	51	0.06	66	0.05
Indjic 1988		22	0.42	8	0.00	37	0.05	31	0.21	47	0.08	38	0.13
Kapell 1951		13	0.44	65	0.00	9	0.13	21	0.43	21	0.35	18	0.39
Kissin 1993		49	0.36	37	0.00	60	0.04	68	0.04	53	0.07	67	0.05
Kushner 1989		15	0.44	22	0.00	15	0.10	15	0.48	62	0.05	33	0.15
Luisada 1991		16	0.44	38	0.00	20	0.09	23	0.41	26	0.30	21	0.35
Lushtak 2004		7	0.47	46	0.00	6	0.38	6	0.65	6	0.67	5	0.66
Malcuzynski 1961		25	0.41	21	0.00	22	0.10	19	0.43	46	0.08	29	0.19
Magaloff 1978		59	0.32	30	0.00	70	0.04	80	0.04	75	0.03	82	0.03
Magin 1975		20	0.42	47	0.00	16	0.10	14	0.48	20	0.46	13	0.47
Michalowski 1933		73	0.29	66	0.00	62	0.04	65	0.04	16	0.43	37	0.13
Milkina 1970		53	0.34	39	0.00	48	0.06	48	0.06	53	0.06	58	0.06
Mohovich 1999		12	0.45	67	0.00	13	0.16	22	0.41	29	0.42	16	0.41
Moravec 1969		70	0.30	48	0.00	76	0.03	82	0.03	85	0.02	86	0.02
Morozova 2008		72	0.29	86	0.00	64	0.04	74	0.04	67	0.04	74	0.04
Neighaus 1950		46	0.37	49	0.00	52	0.05	55	0.05	44	0.16	50	0.09
Niedzielski 1931		52	0.35	50	0.00	45	0.06	44	0.12	32	0.27	30	0.18
Ohlsson 1999		23	0.42	51	0.00	19	0.10	18	0.44	32	0.29	20	0.36
Osinska 1989		4	0.50	5	0.00	4	0.27	4	0.72	9	0.65	4	0.68
Pachmann 1927		40	0.38	68	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.12	18	0.47	28	0.24
Paderewski 1930		85	0.22	69	0.00	80	0.04	81	0.04	67	0.04	72	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		64	0.32	87	0.00	61	0.04	72	0.04	73	0.04	70	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		65	0.32	52	0.00	78	0.04	63	0.04	59	0.04	71	0.04
Poblocka 1999		33	0.39	88	0.00	43	0.05	42	0.13	49	0.07	45	0.10
Rabcewiczowa 1932		78	0.25	70	0.00	72	0.03	83	0.03	76	0.04	84	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		61	0.32	53	0.00	66	0.05	59	0.05	59	0.05	63	0.05
Rangell 2001		29	0.40	40	0.00	33	0.06	27	0.27	29	0.43	23	0.34
Richter 1976		42	0.37	71	0.00	58	0.08	46	0.08	48	0.07	53	0.07
Rosen 1989		26	0.41	54	0.00	30	0.06	24	0.37	45	0.08	31	0.17
Rosenthal 1930		88	0.17	89	0.00	88	0.03	88	0.03	87	0.02	87	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		86	0.19	55	0.00	86	0.04	70	0.04	45	0.14	54	0.07
Rosenthal 1931b		79	0.25	90	0.00	82	0.03	87	0.03	39	0.21	52	0.08
Rosenthal 1931c		83	0.23	4	0.00	85	0.03	86	0.03	82	0.02	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931d		82	0.23	72	0.00	83	0.04	78	0.04	53	0.05	79	0.04
Rossi 2007		84	0.22	56	0.00	67	0.04	79	0.04	22	0.37	39	0.12
Rubinstein 1939		74	0.28	73	0.00	68	0.04	77	0.04	78	0.03	83	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		36	0.38	91	0.00	31	0.06	29	0.24	53	0.06	41	0.12
Rubinstein 1966		11	0.46	74	0.00	10	0.15	10	0.54	34	0.23	22	0.35
Schilhawsky 1960		18	0.43	16	0.00	17	0.11	13	0.49	4	0.65	7	0.56
Shebanova 2002		28	0.40	75	0.00	24	0.10	25	0.34	49	0.07	34	0.15
Smith 1975		75	0.27	25	0.00	79	0.05	60	0.05	60	0.05	64	0.05
Sokolov 2002		45	0.37	26	0.00	41	0.07	41	0.13	40	0.17	32	0.15
Sztompka 1959		80	0.24	76	0.00	84	0.05	62	0.05	88	0.03	73	0.04
Tomsic 1995		66	0.31	57	0.00	57	0.06	49	0.06	60	0.05	65	0.05
Uninsky 1932		54	0.34	77	0.00	54	0.05	56	0.05	85	0.03	76	0.04
Uninsky 1971		41	0.37	11	0.00	34	0.06	39	0.18	58	0.05	48	0.09
Wasowski 1980		50	0.35	14	0.00	36	0.07	40	0.15	58	0.05	46	0.09
Zak 1937		1	0.97	1	1.00	1	0.98	1	1.00	1	1.00	1	1.00
Zak 1951		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Average		2	0.63	6	0.00	2	0.68	2	0.88	39	0.20	14	0.42
Random 1		90	-0.04	78	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	61	0.03	88	0.02
Random 2		91	-0.05	41	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	82	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		89	-0.02	27	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	17	0.35	51	0.08

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).