Michalowski 1933

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		3	0.60	6	0.05	6	0.35	2	0.66	34	0.27	6	0.42
Anderszewski 2003		47	0.43	89	0.00	58	0.04	65	0.04	83	0.03	79	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		28	0.48	9	0.02	9	0.15	9	0.55	41	0.15	12	0.29
Bacha 2000		74	0.33	69	0.00	68	0.03	75	0.03	78	0.03	71	0.03
Badura 1965		26	0.49	34	0.00	26	0.06	21	0.38	40	0.21	13	0.28
Barbosa 1983		86	0.18	85	0.00	85	0.03	84	0.03	88	0.02	87	0.02
Biret 1990		48	0.43	12	0.01	40	0.07	36	0.22	83	0.03	49	0.08
Blet 2003		30	0.47	13	0.01	41	0.08	38	0.21	52	0.06	33	0.11
Block 1995		77	0.31	86	0.00	66	0.03	73	0.03	83	0.03	82	0.03
Blumental 1952		52	0.41	75	0.00	38	0.07	44	0.12	57	0.05	48	0.08
Boshniakovich 1969		2	0.61	10	0.02	7	0.20	6	0.59	37	0.21	8	0.35
Brailowsky 1960		71	0.34	82	0.00	79	0.03	78	0.03	79	0.04	73	0.03
Bunin 1987		62	0.39	45	0.00	24	0.08	31	0.26	27	0.37	11	0.31
Bunin 1987b		63	0.39	77	0.00	25	0.07	33	0.25	26	0.38	10	0.31
Chiu 1999		76	0.31	47	0.00	65	0.03	74	0.03	87	0.03	75	0.03
Cohen 1997		87	0.17	30	0.00	86	0.03	83	0.03	87	0.02	90	0.02
Cortot 1951		64	0.38	71	0.00	63	0.04	66	0.04	77	0.03	84	0.03
Csalog 1996		80	0.28	87	0.00	72	0.03	76	0.03	87	0.02	88	0.02
Czerny 1949		9	0.53	11	0.01	3	0.17	8	0.56	38	0.27	7	0.39
Czerny 1990		36	0.45	88	0.00	51	0.07	50	0.07	80	0.03	63	0.05
Duchoud 2007		66	0.36	44	0.00	52	0.09	45	0.09	42	0.14	35	0.11
Ezaki 2006		50	0.42	31	0.00	55	0.06	53	0.06	87	0.03	64	0.04
Falvay 1989		82	0.27	48	0.00	83	0.03	87	0.03	87	0.02	86	0.02
Farrell 1958		72	0.34	79	0.00	70	0.03	81	0.03	84	0.03	77	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		65	0.37	83	0.00	57	0.04	67	0.04	67	0.03	81	0.03
Fliere 1977		8	0.55	26	0.00	13	0.08	13	0.47	65	0.04	25	0.14
Fou 1978		34	0.46	67	0.00	45	0.07	51	0.07	71	0.04	60	0.05
Francois 1956		29	0.47	14	0.01	42	0.08	39	0.20	43	0.12	24	0.15
Friedman 1923		42	0.44	33	0.00	50	0.08	49	0.08	68	0.05	54	0.06
Friedman 1923b		31	0.47	35	0.00	44	0.09	43	0.18	56	0.06	41	0.10
Friedman 1930		25	0.50	59	0.00	36	0.07	26	0.28	41	0.22	15	0.25
Garcia 2007		61	0.39	42	0.00	61	0.05	55	0.05	56	0.05	62	0.05
Garcia 2007b		44	0.44	65	0.00	35	0.06	40	0.20	62	0.04	45	0.09
Gierzod 1998		17	0.51	39	0.00	20	0.11	16	0.45	73	0.04	29	0.13
Gornostaeva 1994		11	0.53	49	0.00	32	0.06	25	0.30	47	0.05	30	0.12
Groot 1988		78	0.31	64	0.00	78	0.04	61	0.04	80	0.04	70	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		12	0.52	54	0.00	19	0.09	18	0.43	83	0.03	38	0.11
Hatto 1993		60	0.39	72	0.00	23	0.08	35	0.23	77	0.03	51	0.08
Hatto 1997		56	0.40	73	0.00	22	0.08	34	0.23	76	0.04	40	0.10
Horowitz 1949		43	0.44	60	0.00	46	0.08	47	0.08	44	0.15	31	0.11
Indjic 1988		53	0.41	84	0.00	14	0.08	29	0.27	77	0.03	43	0.09
Kapell 1951		38	0.45	63	0.00	27	0.08	30	0.27	65	0.04	39	0.10
Kissin 1993		23	0.50	22	0.00	18	0.09	14	0.47	56	0.05	23	0.15
Kushner 1989		13	0.52	4	0.07	10	0.12	19	0.41	62	0.05	26	0.14
Luisada 1991		51	0.42	53	0.00	49	0.07	52	0.07	81	0.03	55	0.05
Lushtak 2004		75	0.32	80	0.00	77	0.04	68	0.04	69	0.04	68	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		14	0.52	7	0.04	28	0.06	28	0.28	36	0.15	19	0.20
Magaloff 1978		69	0.35	52	0.00	76	0.05	59	0.05	81	0.03	67	0.04
Magin 1975		1	0.63	1	0.24	1	0.24	1	0.73	25	0.36	3	0.51
Michalowski 1933		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Milkina 1970		18	0.51	57	0.00	37	0.07	37	0.21	76	0.04	42	0.09
Mohovich 1999		73	0.33	68	0.00	73	0.04	70	0.04	86	0.03	83	0.03
Moravec 1969		67	0.35	23	0.00	71	0.03	77	0.03	82	0.03	72	0.03
Morozova 2008		32	0.46	51	0.00	39	0.06	41	0.18	75	0.04	47	0.08
Neighaus 1950		10	0.53	24	0.00	15	0.07	15	0.46	44	0.08	20	0.19
Niedzielski 1931		37	0.45	43	0.00	47	0.08	46	0.08	77	0.03	59	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		19	0.51	27	0.00	12	0.07	10	0.48	49	0.06	21	0.17
Osinska 1989		40	0.45	76	0.00	56	0.05	57	0.05	72	0.04	66	0.04
Pachmann 1927		33	0.46	16	0.00	59	0.04	62	0.04	29	0.29	32	0.11
Paderewski 1930		15	0.51	8	0.02	31	0.06	27	0.28	24	0.36	9	0.32
Perlemuter 1992		55	0.41	40	0.00	54	0.05	60	0.05	81	0.03	65	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		70	0.35	46	0.00	64	0.04	69	0.04	54	0.06	58	0.05
Poblocka 1999		22	0.50	70	0.00	16	0.06	17	0.44	43	0.14	14	0.25
Rabcewiczowa 1932		21	0.51	36	0.00	34	0.08	22	0.36	42	0.11	18	0.20
Rachmaninoff 1923		35	0.46	17	0.00	43	0.07	42	0.18	72	0.04	46	0.08
Rangell 2001		68	0.35	28	0.00	62	0.04	63	0.04	63	0.04	69	0.04
Richter 1976		24	0.50	50	0.00	11	0.09	11	0.48	22	0.49	5	0.48
Rosen 1989		16	0.51	20	0.00	33	0.07	32	0.26	71	0.05	37	0.11
Rosenthal 1930		46	0.44	25	0.00	60	0.06	54	0.06	39	0.19	36	0.11
Rosenthal 1931		58	0.40	62	0.00	74	0.04	71	0.04	47	0.06	61	0.05
Rosenthal 1931b		57	0.40	19	0.00	67	0.03	72	0.03	42	0.12	52	0.06
Rosenthal 1931c		54	0.41	41	0.00	69	0.03	79	0.03	43	0.11	53	0.06
Rosenthal 1931d		59	0.40	37	0.00	75	0.05	56	0.05	42	0.14	50	0.08
Rossi 2007		79	0.30	32	0.00	82	0.03	86	0.03	69	0.04	74	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		83	0.26	38	0.00	80	0.03	80	0.03	85	0.03	76	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		84	0.25	58	0.00	81	0.04	64	0.04	74	0.03	85	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		81	0.27	81	0.00	84	0.03	82	0.03	81	0.04	80	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		4	0.59	2	0.23	2	0.25	3	0.62	19	0.51	1	0.56
Shebanova 2002		20	0.51	90	0.00	17	0.08	12	0.48	69	0.04	27	0.14
Smith 1975		27	0.48	21	0.00	48	0.08	48	0.08	87	0.03	57	0.05
Sokolov 2002		39	0.45	66	0.00	21	0.10	20	0.38	40	0.12	16	0.21
Sztompka 1959		5	0.59	15	0.00	8	0.26	4	0.61	48	0.07	17	0.21
Tomsic 1995		85	0.23	78	0.00	87	0.03	85	0.03	85	0.03	78	0.03
Uninsky 1932		6	0.58	3	0.10	4	0.19	5	0.60	13	0.51	2	0.55
Uninsky 1971		7	0.57	5	0.07	5	0.26	7	0.59	26	0.44	4	0.51
Wasowski 1980		49	0.42	74	0.00	53	0.05	58	0.05	61	0.05	56	0.05
Zak 1937		41	0.44	55	0.00	29	0.06	23	0.34	53	0.07	22	0.15
Zak 1951		45	0.44	29	0.00	30	0.08	24	0.34	68	0.05	28	0.13
Random 1		90	-0.08	18	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	15	0.40	44	0.09
Random 2		88	0.01	61	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	1	0.59	34	0.11
Random 3		89	-0.04	56	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	52	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).