Hatto 1993

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		10	0.78	29	0.00	13	0.12	15	0.45	22	0.39	15	0.42
Anderszewski 2003		25	0.70	30	0.00	26	0.07	24	0.30	31	0.24	29	0.27
Ashkenazy 1981		13	0.76	31	0.00	19	0.12	28	0.28	17	0.36	23	0.32
Bacha 2000		49	0.60	32	0.00	58	0.06	54	0.06	42	0.10	52	0.08
Badura 1965		14	0.75	33	0.00	29	0.06	21	0.31	6	0.59	13	0.43
Barbosa 1983		45	0.61	3	0.00	63	0.04	67	0.04	35	0.13	55	0.07
Biret 1990		52	0.59	11	0.00	57	0.06	56	0.06	52	0.05	68	0.05
Blet 2003		38	0.65	34	0.00	39	0.06	33	0.22	13	0.38	28	0.29
Block 1995		71	0.48	35	0.00	31	0.05	44	0.10	72	0.04	59	0.06
Blumental 1952		40	0.64	36	0.00	55	0.06	51	0.06	51	0.05	66	0.05
Boshniakovich 1969		29	0.67	8	0.00	11	0.10	11	0.50	13	0.54	8	0.52
Brailowsky 1960		65	0.51	37	0.00	75	0.04	68	0.04	80	0.03	82	0.03
Bunin 1987		74	0.45	38	0.00	68	0.04	76	0.04	36	0.23	50	0.10
Bunin 1987b		75	0.44	39	0.00	67	0.04	73	0.04	36	0.23	48	0.10
Chiu 1999		24	0.70	40	0.00	41	0.08	39	0.17	32	0.23	35	0.20
Cohen 1997		60	0.55	41	0.00	74	0.04	74	0.04	27	0.27	49	0.10
Cortot 1951		53	0.59	42	0.00	56	0.06	47	0.06	34	0.22	47	0.11
Csalog 1996		82	0.30	16	0.00	73	0.04	75	0.04	61	0.04	77	0.04
Czerny 1949		20	0.72	17	0.00	20	0.15	9	0.53	24	0.46	9	0.49
Czerny 1990		21	0.72	43	0.00	38	0.08	31	0.25	38	0.13	40	0.18
Duchoud 2007		64	0.51	44	0.00	64	0.05	61	0.05	46	0.08	58	0.06
Ezaki 2006		15	0.74	12	0.00	30	0.06	36	0.21	35	0.20	34	0.20
Falvay 1989		83	0.27	18	0.00	88	0.03	84	0.03	80	0.02	89	0.02
Farrell 1958		37	0.65	45	0.00	59	0.04	72	0.04	68	0.04	74	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		48	0.60	46	0.00	54	0.06	53	0.06	24	0.31	43	0.14
Fliere 1977		7	0.80	13	0.00	5	0.24	6	0.58	10	0.46	7	0.52
Fou 1978		36	0.65	19	0.00	47	0.06	58	0.06	46	0.06	57	0.06
Francois 1956		69	0.49	20	0.00	72	0.04	78	0.04	85	0.02	88	0.03
Friedman 1923		4	0.86	21	0.00	4	0.18	4	0.64	5	0.69	4	0.66
Friedman 1923b		3	0.86	47	0.00	3	0.21	3	0.65	5	0.69	3	0.67
Friedman 1930		5	0.81	48	0.00	6	0.26	7	0.58	5	0.64	5	0.61
Garcia 2007		32	0.67	49	0.00	40	0.07	38	0.17	36	0.20	39	0.18
Garcia 2007b		44	0.62	50	0.00	33	0.05	27	0.29	26	0.35	24	0.32
Gierzod 1998		19	0.72	9	0.00	12	0.09	12	0.49	18	0.41	12	0.45
Gornostaeva 1994		73	0.46	51	0.00	66	0.05	64	0.05	77	0.03	79	0.04
Groot 1988		70	0.49	52	0.00	69	0.03	82	0.03	49	0.06	80	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		17	0.74	14	0.00	37	0.09	32	0.24	41	0.12	41	0.17
Hatto 1993		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Hatto 1997		2	1.00	2	0.32	2	0.97	2	1.00	2	1.00	2	1.00
Horowitz 1949		50	0.60	53	0.00	46	0.07	46	0.07	36	0.35	42	0.16
Indjic 1988		1	1.00	1	0.68	1	0.67	1	1.00	2	1.00	1	1.00
Kapell 1951		59	0.56	22	0.00	24	0.08	26	0.29	39	0.12	36	0.19
Kissin 1993		34	0.66	54	0.00	27	0.06	30	0.28	34	0.20	31	0.24
Kushner 1989		41	0.64	55	0.00	51	0.05	63	0.05	48	0.06	63	0.05
Luisada 1991		8	0.79	56	0.00	15	0.08	22	0.31	16	0.34	21	0.32
Lushtak 2004		16	0.74	57	0.00	36	0.07	35	0.21	22	0.27	32	0.24
Malcuzynski 1961		78	0.33	10	0.00	50	0.06	59	0.06	49	0.05	65	0.05
Magaloff 1978		68	0.49	5	0.00	70	0.04	66	0.04	54	0.06	62	0.05
Magin 1975		47	0.61	58	0.00	28	0.06	37	0.20	43	0.09	45	0.13
Michalowski 1933		61	0.53	59	0.00	34	0.06	42	0.13	28	0.27	37	0.19
Milkina 1970		62	0.52	60	0.00	65	0.05	60	0.05	49	0.05	64	0.05
Mohovich 1999		56	0.57	61	0.00	60	0.04	69	0.04	54	0.06	67	0.05
Moravec 1969		80	0.30	62	0.00	84	0.03	86	0.03	81	0.03	81	0.03
Morozova 2008		9	0.79	4	0.00	10	0.11	18	0.38	14	0.43	16	0.40
Neighaus 1950		22	0.71	23	0.00	8	0.19	8	0.56	7	0.56	6	0.56
Niedzielski 1931		42	0.64	63	0.00	35	0.05	34	0.22	20	0.45	25	0.31
Ohlsson 1999		23	0.71	7	0.00	21	0.07	25	0.30	25	0.32	26	0.31
Osinska 1989		28	0.68	24	0.00	32	0.06	29	0.28	48	0.06	44	0.13
Pachmann 1927		72	0.47	25	0.00	76	0.05	65	0.05	52	0.04	76	0.04
Paderewski 1930		55	0.57	64	0.00	43	0.06	41	0.14	14	0.41	30	0.24
Perlemuter 1992		39	0.65	65	0.00	53	0.05	62	0.05	46	0.06	60	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		79	0.32	66	0.00	80	0.04	77	0.04	67	0.04	72	0.04
Poblocka 1999		54	0.58	67	0.00	23	0.08	23	0.30	27	0.34	22	0.32
Rabcewiczowa 1932		67	0.50	6	0.00	71	0.03	80	0.03	54	0.05	73	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		35	0.65	68	0.00	52	0.06	55	0.06	47	0.06	56	0.06
Rangell 2001		88	0.15	69	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	70	0.03	84	0.03
Richter 1976		58	0.56	70	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	17	0.50	33	0.22
Rosen 1989		46	0.61	71	0.00	42	0.05	40	0.14	50	0.06	51	0.09
Rosenthal 1930		77	0.35	72	0.00	78	0.06	57	0.06	67	0.03	78	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		87	0.22	73	0.00	86	0.03	85	0.03	68	0.04	83	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		86	0.23	74	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	68	0.04	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		84	0.25	75	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	68	0.04	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		85	0.23	76	0.00	87	0.04	79	0.04	77	0.03	85	0.03
Rossi 2007		66	0.51	77	0.00	79	0.04	71	0.04	75	0.04	70	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		33	0.67	78	0.00	49	0.06	48	0.06	28	0.23	46	0.12
Rubinstein 1952		76	0.37	79	0.00	77	0.04	70	0.04	55	0.06	69	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		26	0.69	80	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.12	33	0.27	38	0.18
Schilhawsky 1960		18	0.74	26	0.00	18	0.10	13	0.47	23	0.46	11	0.46
Shebanova 2002		31	0.67	27	0.00	14	0.08	14	0.47	31	0.28	18	0.36
Smith 1975		57	0.57	81	0.00	62	0.06	50	0.06	87	0.03	71	0.04
Sokolov 2002		63	0.52	82	0.00	61	0.06	52	0.06	48	0.05	61	0.05
Sztompka 1959		27	0.69	83	0.00	22	0.08	19	0.37	35	0.22	27	0.29
Tomsic 1995		81	0.30	84	0.00	83	0.03	87	0.03	64	0.05	75	0.04
Uninsky 1932		43	0.62	85	0.00	25	0.09	20	0.34	27	0.32	20	0.33
Uninsky 1971		51	0.60	86	0.00	9	0.15	10	0.51	24	0.42	10	0.46
Wasowski 1980		30	0.67	87	0.00	48	0.06	49	0.06	47	0.08	54	0.07
Zak 1937		12	0.76	28	0.00	17	0.10	17	0.38	15	0.33	19	0.35
Zak 1951		11	0.77	88	0.00	16	0.09	16	0.39	15	0.33	17	0.36
Average		6	0.80	15	0.00	7	0.22	5	0.60	28	0.29	14	0.42
Random 1		90	-0.24	89	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	70	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		89	0.02	90	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	17	0.30	53	0.08
Random 3		91	-0.28	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01

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).