Csalog 1996

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		34	0.48	36	0.00	52	0.03	67	0.03	81	0.03	78	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		72	0.33	49	0.00	64	0.04	50	0.04	83	0.03	71	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		79	0.31	81	0.00	73	0.04	57	0.04	73	0.04	54	0.04
Bacha 2000		46	0.44	20	0.01	19	0.07	21	0.33	33	0.14	18	0.21
Badura 1965		73	0.31	15	0.01	51	0.03	68	0.03	59	0.05	53	0.04
Barbosa 1983		83	0.26	16	0.01	20	0.07	32	0.23	33	0.17	22	0.20
Biret 1990		27	0.51	43	0.00	27	0.06	28	0.28	64	0.04	33	0.11
Blet 2003		13	0.56	23	0.00	24	0.07	25	0.30	34	0.19	14	0.24
Block 1995		81	0.29	25	0.00	75	0.02	84	0.02	56	0.05	81	0.03
Blumental 1952		16	0.55	6	0.03	5	0.11	4	0.48	30	0.16	13	0.28
Boshniakovich 1969		62	0.36	48	0.00	76	0.02	86	0.02	74	0.04	82	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		65	0.35	59	0.00	69	0.03	69	0.03	66	0.04	60	0.03
Bunin 1987		66	0.35	50	0.00	79	0.03	82	0.03	55	0.06	55	0.04
Bunin 1987b		67	0.34	88	0.00	78	0.02	85	0.02	54	0.06	66	0.03
Chiu 1999		69	0.33	32	0.00	21	0.07	26	0.28	37	0.18	17	0.22
Cohen 1997		60	0.38	52	0.00	17	0.07	22	0.32	8	0.45	7	0.38
Cortot 1951		40	0.46	85	0.00	56	0.05	49	0.05	73	0.04	58	0.04
Csalog 1996		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Czerny 1949		68	0.34	89	0.00	82	0.04	52	0.04	88	0.02	77	0.03
Czerny 1990		21	0.52	86	0.00	23	0.08	17	0.36	72	0.03	37	0.10
Duchoud 2007		82	0.28	55	0.00	80	0.03	80	0.03	80	0.03	80	0.03
Ezaki 2006		56	0.39	42	0.00	40	0.04	38	0.15	82	0.03	41	0.07
Falvay 1989		12	0.57	2	0.12	4	0.14	5	0.47	3	0.56	2	0.51
Farrell 1958		76	0.31	70	0.00	70	0.04	54	0.04	78	0.04	50	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		4	0.62	3	0.08	3	0.16	7	0.44	5	0.50	5	0.47
Fliere 1977		36	0.47	21	0.01	42	0.06	42	0.12	83	0.03	46	0.06
Fou 1978		28	0.50	37	0.00	31	0.06	27	0.28	48	0.05	28	0.12
Francois 1956		30	0.50	78	0.00	35	0.06	34	0.18	46	0.06	38	0.10
Friedman 1923		88	0.22	82	0.00	85	0.03	83	0.03	77	0.03	87	0.03
Friedman 1923b		87	0.22	45	0.00	84	0.03	79	0.03	78	0.03	83	0.03
Friedman 1930		86	0.23	73	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	68	0.04	74	0.03
Garcia 2007		45	0.45	41	0.00	59	0.03	64	0.03	84	0.02	90	0.02
Garcia 2007b		33	0.48	63	0.00	46	0.03	74	0.03	83	0.03	86	0.03
Gierzod 1998		35	0.47	47	0.00	54	0.03	73	0.03	82	0.03	79	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		52	0.41	64	0.00	71	0.05	48	0.05	84	0.02	84	0.03
Groot 1988		51	0.41	56	0.00	43	0.04	45	0.08	74	0.04	47	0.06
Harasiewicz 1955		61	0.37	28	0.00	58	0.05	47	0.05	70	0.04	59	0.04
Hatto 1993		80	0.30	19	0.01	62	0.04	61	0.04	75	0.04	57	0.04
Hatto 1997		77	0.31	34	0.00	61	0.03	72	0.03	73	0.04	75	0.03
Horowitz 1949		85	0.23	87	0.00	88	0.04	59	0.04	85	0.03	68	0.03
Indjic 1988		78	0.31	18	0.01	63	0.04	51	0.04	75	0.04	52	0.04
Kapell 1951		1	0.77	1	0.38	1	0.37	1	0.70	13	0.33	3	0.48
Kissin 1993		18	0.53	11	0.02	37	0.08	33	0.20	76	0.03	39	0.08
Kushner 1989		10	0.58	9	0.02	12	0.08	9	0.42	44	0.11	20	0.21
Luisada 1991		57	0.39	79	0.00	41	0.04	40	0.12	68	0.04	42	0.07
Lushtak 2004		37	0.47	35	0.00	18	0.09	14	0.38	42	0.11	23	0.20
Malcuzynski 1961		75	0.31	53	0.00	83	0.03	75	0.03	81	0.03	67	0.03
Magaloff 1978		58	0.38	40	0.00	72	0.05	46	0.05	75	0.04	49	0.04
Magin 1975		48	0.43	46	0.00	68	0.04	62	0.04	88	0.03	65	0.03
Michalowski 1933		50	0.42	33	0.00	49	0.04	58	0.04	62	0.05	51	0.04
Milkina 1970		15	0.56	14	0.01	29	0.07	19	0.34	80	0.03	35	0.10
Mohovich 1999		5	0.60	17	0.01	6	0.13	3	0.51	38	0.25	8	0.36
Moravec 1969		7	0.60	26	0.00	13	0.07	12	0.39	14	0.48	6	0.43
Morozova 2008		55	0.40	29	0.00	60	0.04	55	0.04	73	0.03	73	0.03
Neighaus 1950		74	0.31	91	0.00	74	0.03	76	0.03	65	0.05	56	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		42	0.46	83	0.00	57	0.04	53	0.04	71	0.03	64	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		70	0.33	30	0.00	65	0.03	71	0.03	88	0.02	89	0.02
Osinska 1989		31	0.50	57	0.00	38	0.08	31	0.26	56	0.05	32	0.11
Pachmann 1927		64	0.35	61	0.00	77	0.02	87	0.02	74	0.03	88	0.02
Paderewski 1930		19	0.53	90	0.00	36	0.07	36	0.17	59	0.03	43	0.07
Perlemuter 1992		24	0.52	22	0.01	8	0.09	15	0.38	43	0.13	15	0.22
Pierdomenico 2008		71	0.33	51	0.00	81	0.03	70	0.03	74	0.04	63	0.03
Poblocka 1999		9	0.59	13	0.01	14	0.07	8	0.43	45	0.11	16	0.22
Rabcewiczowa 1932		3	0.63	65	0.00	7	0.14	6	0.46	31	0.21	10	0.31
Rachmaninoff 1923		63	0.36	71	0.00	67	0.03	77	0.03	80	0.03	62	0.03
Rangell 2001		49	0.43	44	0.00	48	0.03	66	0.03	54	0.04	85	0.03
Richter 1976		84	0.25	60	0.00	87	0.03	78	0.03	68	0.04	69	0.03
Rosen 1989		6	0.60	31	0.00	22	0.07	16	0.37	53	0.05	25	0.14
Rosenthal 1930		8	0.59	12	0.02	15	0.07	13	0.39	22	0.26	9	0.32
Rosenthal 1931		22	0.52	62	0.00	39	0.06	39	0.13	31	0.22	24	0.17
Rosenthal 1931b		25	0.52	76	0.00	44	0.03	43	0.11	39	0.13	31	0.12
Rosenthal 1931c		11	0.58	58	0.00	28	0.06	29	0.27	19	0.33	11	0.30
Rosenthal 1931d		29	0.50	77	0.00	45	0.05	44	0.09	35	0.17	30	0.12
Rossi 2007		59	0.38	27	0.00	26	0.06	37	0.16	28	0.25	21	0.20
Rubinstein 1939		44	0.45	72	0.00	30	0.07	30	0.26	34	0.17	19	0.21
Rubinstein 1952		2	0.68	5	0.04	2	0.21	2	0.52	4	0.55	1	0.53
Rubinstein 1966		47	0.44	10	0.02	16	0.08	20	0.34	39	0.23	12	0.28
Schilhawsky 1960		54	0.41	54	0.00	66	0.03	81	0.03	74	0.04	72	0.03
Shebanova 2002		20	0.53	84	0.00	10	0.07	18	0.34	69	0.04	29	0.12
Smith 1975		38	0.47	74	0.00	34	0.06	35	0.18	42	0.08	27	0.12
Sokolov 2002		43	0.46	24	0.00	47	0.04	63	0.04	75	0.03	61	0.03
Sztompka 1959		53	0.41	39	0.00	55	0.04	60	0.04	86	0.03	70	0.03
Tomsic 1995		17	0.54	7	0.03	9	0.08	11	0.41	9	0.56	4	0.48
Uninsky 1932		39	0.46	66	0.00	50	0.03	65	0.03	72	0.04	76	0.03
Uninsky 1971		32	0.49	4	0.05	25	0.07	41	0.12	76	0.04	44	0.07
Wasowski 1980		41	0.46	80	0.00	53	0.04	56	0.04	68	0.05	48	0.04
Zak 1937		23	0.52	68	0.00	33	0.08	23	0.31	83	0.03	34	0.10
Zak 1951		26	0.52	38	0.00	32	0.06	24	0.31	73	0.03	36	0.10
Average		14	0.56	8	0.02	11	0.07	10	0.41	69	0.04	26	0.13
Random 1		90	-0.14	69	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	20	0.28	45	0.07
Random 2		91	-0.22	75	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	81	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		89	-0.09	67	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	25	0.32	40	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).