Boshniakovich 1969

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		6	0.79	20	0.01	12	0.14	10	0.55	17	0.40	19	0.47
Anderszewski 2003		17	0.76	29	0.00	25	0.09	29	0.34	19	0.29	31	0.31
Ashkenazy 1981		52	0.65	14	0.01	34	0.09	31	0.31	37	0.18	37	0.24
Bacha 2000		76	0.44	67	0.00	74	0.03	82	0.03	70	0.04	79	0.03
Badura 1965		12	0.77	34	0.00	8	0.11	11	0.54	2	0.62	1	0.58
Barbosa 1983		85	0.34	30	0.00	78	0.04	75	0.04	71	0.04	74	0.04
Biret 1990		64	0.57	13	0.01	55	0.06	53	0.06	61	0.04	67	0.05
Blet 2003		42	0.67	62	0.00	46	0.05	65	0.05	36	0.17	51	0.09
Block 1995		40	0.67	77	0.00	24	0.08	34	0.25	12	0.35	33	0.30
Blumental 1952		75	0.46	50	0.00	67	0.04	72	0.04	44	0.08	61	0.06
Boshniakovich 1969		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Brailowsky 1960		68	0.53	79	0.00	73	0.03	77	0.03	78	0.03	80	0.03
Bunin 1987		56	0.61	57	0.00	39	0.07	42	0.18	8	0.50	34	0.30
Bunin 1987b		57	0.60	58	0.00	38	0.07	40	0.19	8	0.50	30	0.31
Chiu 1999		73	0.47	84	0.00	68	0.05	64	0.05	49	0.04	70	0.04
Cohen 1997		88	0.21	65	0.00	83	0.02	86	0.02	71	0.03	90	0.02
Cortot 1951		39	0.67	44	0.00	50	0.07	46	0.07	27	0.30	44	0.14
Csalog 1996		83	0.36	60	0.00	79	0.04	74	0.04	86	0.02	84	0.03
Czerny 1949		16	0.76	41	0.00	10	0.10	20	0.47	25	0.44	20	0.45
Czerny 1990		51	0.66	63	0.00	61	0.05	69	0.05	45	0.09	57	0.07
Duchoud 2007		60	0.59	26	0.01	51	0.05	55	0.05	14	0.35	45	0.13
Ezaki 2006		41	0.67	85	0.00	54	0.06	54	0.06	48	0.05	62	0.05
Falvay 1989		84	0.36	72	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	67	0.05	81	0.03
Farrell 1958		70	0.52	54	0.00	69	0.07	48	0.07	66	0.04	64	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		54	0.64	64	0.00	64	0.06	52	0.06	47	0.07	60	0.06
Fliere 1977		2	0.82	12	0.01	6	0.11	7	0.57	14	0.41	12	0.48
Fou 1978		48	0.66	80	0.00	45	0.07	44	0.14	34	0.18	39	0.16
Francois 1956		58	0.60	53	0.00	65	0.05	61	0.05	64	0.04	78	0.04
Friedman 1923		35	0.68	68	0.00	33	0.08	26	0.37	20	0.46	25	0.41
Friedman 1923b		37	0.68	73	0.00	31	0.08	25	0.38	21	0.46	22	0.42
Friedman 1930		25	0.72	17	0.01	30	0.07	27	0.36	18	0.47	23	0.41
Garcia 2007		36	0.68	52	0.00	48	0.05	56	0.05	44	0.13	54	0.08
Garcia 2007b		49	0.66	88	0.00	43	0.07	41	0.18	40	0.15	41	0.16
Gierzod 1998		4	0.81	6	0.04	5	0.12	5	0.58	12	0.48	5	0.53
Gornostaeva 1994		26	0.72	8	0.03	32	0.07	36	0.22	15	0.33	35	0.27
Groot 1988		63	0.57	32	0.00	60	0.05	62	0.05	51	0.06	68	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		5	0.80	1	0.22	1	0.22	2	0.62	5	0.53	2	0.57
Hatto 1993		38	0.67	37	0.00	20	0.16	13	0.54	11	0.50	8	0.52
Hatto 1997		31	0.69	31	0.00	19	0.10	14	0.54	9	0.50	7	0.52
Horowitz 1949		15	0.76	56	0.00	22	0.10	22	0.45	8	0.52	15	0.48
Indjic 1988		30	0.70	10	0.03	14	0.10	12	0.54	10	0.50	6	0.52
Kapell 1951		50	0.66	59	0.00	37	0.08	35	0.23	43	0.08	43	0.14
Kissin 1993		7	0.79	22	0.01	13	0.18	16	0.52	16	0.44	17	0.48
Kushner 1989		32	0.69	33	0.00	49	0.06	50	0.06	47	0.06	58	0.06
Luisada 1991		44	0.67	38	0.00	42	0.06	43	0.17	61	0.05	49	0.09
Lushtak 2004		59	0.59	35	0.00	57	0.05	67	0.05	41	0.12	55	0.08
Malcuzynski 1961		29	0.70	7	0.03	29	0.07	33	0.25	6	0.46	29	0.34
Magaloff 1978		71	0.51	39	0.00	71	0.05	58	0.05	59	0.05	63	0.05
Magin 1975		19	0.75	28	0.00	27	0.10	30	0.34	35	0.20	36	0.26
Michalowski 1933		10	0.78	24	0.01	16	0.07	21	0.46	6	0.54	10	0.50
Milkina 1970		43	0.67	36	0.00	52	0.05	68	0.05	50	0.05	65	0.05
Mohovich 1999		62	0.59	55	0.00	63	0.05	59	0.05	63	0.05	66	0.05
Moravec 1969		86	0.31	69	0.00	88	0.03	84	0.03	83	0.02	88	0.02
Morozova 2008		34	0.69	61	0.00	35	0.07	32	0.28	36	0.19	38	0.23
Neighaus 1950		3	0.81	4	0.10	3	0.18	4	0.58	10	0.52	3	0.55
Niedzielski 1931		55	0.63	27	0.00	58	0.05	60	0.05	74	0.03	73	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		27	0.71	42	0.00	23	0.09	24	0.42	20	0.38	26	0.40
Osinska 1989		24	0.72	51	0.00	40	0.06	39	0.20	66	0.04	50	0.09
Pachmann 1927		22	0.73	11	0.02	47	0.05	66	0.05	3	0.51	40	0.16
Paderewski 1930		28	0.70	18	0.01	36	0.08	38	0.21	10	0.44	32	0.30
Perlemuter 1992		47	0.66	43	0.00	44	0.07	45	0.13	45	0.10	47	0.11
Pierdomenico 2008		66	0.54	48	0.00	66	0.05	70	0.05	43	0.13	53	0.08
Poblocka 1999		9	0.78	40	0.00	9	0.10	9	0.55	15	0.47	9	0.51
Rabcewiczowa 1932		72	0.50	83	0.00	75	0.03	78	0.03	80	0.03	82	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		61	0.59	81	0.00	62	0.04	71	0.04	62	0.04	71	0.04
Rangell 2001		69	0.53	46	0.00	59	0.04	73	0.04	12	0.40	46	0.13
Richter 1976		8	0.78	5	0.07	7	0.11	19	0.47	4	0.62	4	0.54
Rosen 1989		45	0.67	86	0.00	53	0.07	49	0.07	41	0.11	52	0.09
Rosenthal 1930		65	0.54	74	0.00	70	0.07	47	0.07	33	0.13	48	0.10
Rosenthal 1931		81	0.38	89	0.00	87	0.03	79	0.03	87	0.03	83	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		80	0.38	70	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	83	0.03	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		79	0.40	87	0.00	81	0.03	81	0.03	80	0.03	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		82	0.38	90	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	81	0.03	91	0.02
Rossi 2007		78	0.41	19	0.01	80	0.03	83	0.03	60	0.05	69	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		77	0.44	75	0.00	77	0.05	57	0.05	79	0.04	72	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		87	0.25	66	0.00	82	0.03	80	0.03	88	0.03	87	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		74	0.46	49	0.00	76	0.04	76	0.04	78	0.04	75	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		18	0.75	16	0.01	21	0.09	18	0.49	15	0.48	18	0.48
Shebanova 2002		14	0.76	15	0.01	15	0.09	17	0.51	25	0.35	21	0.42
Smith 1975		46	0.66	21	0.01	56	0.06	51	0.06	41	0.09	56	0.07
Sokolov 2002		53	0.64	23	0.01	26	0.08	28	0.35	9	0.41	28	0.38
Sztompka 1959		11	0.77	76	0.00	11	0.10	3	0.58	18	0.40	16	0.48
Tomsic 1995		67	0.53	45	0.00	72	0.05	63	0.05	51	0.07	59	0.06
Uninsky 1932		23	0.73	78	0.00	28	0.11	23	0.44	23	0.38	24	0.41
Uninsky 1971		13	0.77	2	0.11	4	0.13	15	0.53	8	0.47	11	0.50
Wasowski 1980		33	0.69	47	0.00	41	0.06	37	0.21	42	0.10	42	0.14
Zak 1937		20	0.74	9	0.03	18	0.10	6	0.57	12	0.40	13	0.48
Zak 1951		21	0.73	25	0.01	17	0.07	8	0.57	11	0.40	14	0.48
Average		1	0.82	3	0.10	2	0.18	1	0.63	31	0.26	27	0.40
Random 1		91	-0.23	82	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	32	0.18	76	0.04
Random 2		90	-0.17	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	60	0.03	89	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.11	71	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	36	0.18	77	0.04

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).