Falvay 1989

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		46	0.50	56	0.00	53	0.05	63	0.05	78	0.03	60	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		41	0.52	28	0.00	50	0.09	49	0.09	86	0.03	52	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		63	0.42	60	0.00	65	0.07	52	0.07	67	0.04	54	0.05
Bacha 2000		30	0.57	27	0.00	30	0.07	29	0.42	80	0.03	35	0.11
Badura 1965		75	0.30	39	0.00	77	0.02	87	0.02	82	0.03	86	0.02
Barbosa 1983		44	0.51	57	0.00	27	0.08	36	0.33	44	0.08	26	0.16
Biret 1990		23	0.61	65	0.00	31	0.09	31	0.41	86	0.03	39	0.11
Blet 2003		58	0.45	85	0.00	58	0.05	64	0.05	86	0.02	71	0.03
Block 1995		49	0.47	36	0.00	36	0.08	44	0.19	76	0.03	46	0.08
Blumental 1952		14	0.64	12	0.02	9	0.11	14	0.51	50	0.05	27	0.16
Boshniakovich 1969		69	0.36	69	0.00	70	0.05	67	0.05	87	0.02	74	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		7	0.67	30	0.00	15	0.09	15	0.51	30	0.24	15	0.35
Bunin 1987		85	0.20	70	0.00	85	0.03	74	0.03	85	0.02	87	0.02
Bunin 1987b		87	0.18	82	0.00	84	0.02	89	0.02	83	0.02	75	0.02
Chiu 1999		22	0.62	34	0.00	29	0.10	30	0.41	43	0.14	19	0.24
Cohen 1997		33	0.55	48	0.00	21	0.09	26	0.43	7	0.46	8	0.44
Cortot 1951		68	0.36	86	0.00	72	0.07	53	0.07	87	0.02	65	0.04
Csalog 1996		29	0.57	3	0.06	8	0.11	3	0.56	5	0.47	3	0.51
Czerny 1949		80	0.29	83	0.00	75	0.02	79	0.02	80	0.03	84	0.02
Czerny 1990		13	0.64	25	0.00	18	0.09	19	0.47	50	0.04	30	0.14
Duchoud 2007		74	0.32	71	0.00	69	0.06	59	0.06	81	0.03	62	0.04
Ezaki 2006		25	0.59	23	0.00	42	0.08	39	0.25	86	0.03	41	0.09
Falvay 1989		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Farrell 1958		4	0.68	14	0.01	5	0.14	4	0.56	33	0.26	13	0.38
Ferenczy 1958		48	0.48	53	0.00	56	0.04	71	0.04	82	0.03	73	0.03
Fliere 1977		61	0.44	37	0.00	59	0.06	56	0.06	69	0.04	50	0.05
Fou 1978		16	0.64	17	0.01	32	0.10	20	0.46	79	0.03	32	0.12
Francois 1956		9	0.65	11	0.02	11	0.08	8	0.53	32	0.22	17	0.34
Friedman 1923		76	0.30	50	0.00	83	0.02	81	0.02	83	0.03	90	0.02
Friedman 1923b		81	0.29	18	0.01	82	0.02	85	0.02	84	0.03	88	0.02
Friedman 1930		71	0.34	87	0.00	81	0.02	78	0.02	79	0.03	82	0.02
Garcia 2007		50	0.46	62	0.00	57	0.05	65	0.05	64	0.04	63	0.04
Garcia 2007b		60	0.44	35	0.00	63	0.04	68	0.04	72	0.04	67	0.04
Gierzod 1998		54	0.45	59	0.00	60	0.06	60	0.06	76	0.03	61	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		31	0.57	16	0.01	37	0.07	38	0.30	75	0.03	44	0.09
Groot 1988		18	0.63	29	0.00	14	0.08	6	0.54	34	0.25	14	0.37
Harasiewicz 1955		51	0.46	32	0.00	66	0.05	62	0.05	83	0.03	66	0.04
Hatto 1993		82	0.27	73	0.00	76	0.02	80	0.02	84	0.03	89	0.02
Hatto 1997		78	0.30	78	0.00	80	0.03	73	0.03	85	0.03	72	0.03
Horowitz 1949		83	0.26	88	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	87	0.02	76	0.02
Indjic 1988		79	0.30	42	0.00	79	0.02	83	0.02	84	0.03	80	0.02
Kapell 1951		55	0.45	72	0.00	47	0.09	50	0.09	88	0.02	57	0.04
Kissin 1993		35	0.54	7	0.03	40	0.08	42	0.22	83	0.03	45	0.08
Kushner 1989		12	0.64	5	0.03	19	0.08	10	0.52	59	0.05	24	0.16
Luisada 1991		38	0.53	76	0.00	43	0.08	43	0.21	74	0.04	42	0.09
Lushtak 2004		17	0.63	6	0.03	20	0.10	17	0.49	49	0.06	23	0.17
Malcuzynski 1961		72	0.34	51	0.00	67	0.06	57	0.06	84	0.03	58	0.04
Magaloff 1978		2	0.70	40	0.00	6	0.16	7	0.54	8	0.43	6	0.48
Magin 1975		64	0.42	54	0.00	52	0.08	51	0.08	66	0.04	49	0.06
Michalowski 1933		77	0.30	67	0.00	74	0.03	76	0.03	86	0.02	78	0.02
Milkina 1970		11	0.64	41	0.00	16	0.09	12	0.52	81	0.03	33	0.12
Mohovich 1999		3	0.68	46	0.00	12	0.10	5	0.54	59	0.06	22	0.18
Moravec 1969		10	0.64	49	0.00	10	0.09	11	0.52	16	0.47	4	0.49
Morozova 2008		59	0.45	61	0.00	54	0.05	61	0.05	84	0.03	59	0.04
Neighaus 1950		67	0.38	74	0.00	71	0.05	66	0.05	77	0.04	64	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		66	0.39	66	0.00	55	0.04	72	0.04	76	0.03	68	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		65	0.39	31	0.00	61	0.04	70	0.04	82	0.03	70	0.03
Osinska 1989		20	0.62	24	0.00	34	0.11	25	0.43	82	0.03	36	0.11
Pachmann 1927		32	0.57	55	0.00	45	0.08	45	0.16	35	0.16	25	0.16
Paderewski 1930		28	0.57	79	0.00	35	0.08	33	0.37	80	0.03	37	0.11
Perlemuter 1992		21	0.62	9	0.02	39	0.11	35	0.36	58	0.04	31	0.12
Pierdomenico 2008		34	0.55	4	0.04	3	0.10	16	0.50	7	0.46	7	0.48
Poblocka 1999		70	0.35	19	0.01	68	0.06	55	0.06	84	0.03	56	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		5	0.68	13	0.01	7	0.17	18	0.47	25	0.26	16	0.35
Rachmaninoff 1923		36	0.54	63	0.00	44	0.11	41	0.25	67	0.04	40	0.10
Rangell 2001		57	0.45	21	0.01	13	0.08	37	0.32	42	0.14	21	0.21
Richter 1976		88	0.11	33	0.00	89	0.02	84	0.02	87	0.02	77	0.02
Rosen 1989		26	0.59	44	0.00	33	0.11	23	0.44	55	0.05	28	0.15
Rosenthal 1930		53	0.45	80	0.00	41	0.08	40	0.25	68	0.03	43	0.09
Rosenthal 1931		40	0.52	81	0.00	25	0.13	24	0.43	20	0.38	11	0.40
Rosenthal 1931b		39	0.53	64	0.00	23	0.12	22	0.44	18	0.41	10	0.42
Rosenthal 1931c		45	0.50	43	0.00	22	0.11	28	0.42	18	0.37	12	0.39
Rosenthal 1931d		37	0.54	77	0.00	24	0.10	21	0.44	15	0.40	9	0.42
Rossi 2007		8	0.66	10	0.02	4	0.11	9	0.53	11	0.46	5	0.49
Rubinstein 1939		27	0.58	58	0.00	28	0.10	32	0.39	38	0.15	20	0.24
Rubinstein 1952		6	0.67	1	0.26	1	0.26	2	0.60	7	0.52	2	0.56
Rubinstein 1966		24	0.60	15	0.01	26	0.11	27	0.42	41	0.19	18	0.28
Schilhawsky 1960		84	0.22	89	0.00	86	0.03	77	0.03	88	0.02	81	0.02
Shebanova 2002		43	0.51	26	0.00	51	0.10	48	0.10	79	0.03	53	0.05
Smith 1975		15	0.64	47	0.00	17	0.08	13	0.52	53	0.04	29	0.14
Sokolov 2002		62	0.43	8	0.03	46	0.07	54	0.07	58	0.03	51	0.05
Sztompka 1959		52	0.46	52	0.00	62	0.04	69	0.04	77	0.03	69	0.03
Tomsic 1995		1	0.73	2	0.26	2	0.35	1	0.64	1	0.67	1	0.65
Uninsky 1932		73	0.32	90	0.00	78	0.02	86	0.02	87	0.03	83	0.02
Uninsky 1971		86	0.20	68	0.00	88	0.02	82	0.02	88	0.02	79	0.02
Wasowski 1980		56	0.45	22	0.01	64	0.06	58	0.06	85	0.03	55	0.04
Zak 1937		42	0.51	38	0.00	48	0.12	47	0.12	55	0.04	47	0.07
Zak 1951		47	0.49	45	0.00	49	0.13	46	0.13	58	0.04	48	0.07
Average		19	0.63	20	0.01	38	0.08	34	0.37	77	0.03	38	0.11
Random 1		91	-0.29	84	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	78	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		90	-0.21	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	56	0.03	85	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.04	75	0.00	73	0.03	75	0.03	12	0.46	34	0.12

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).