Ferenczy 1958

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