Kapell 1951

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		18	0.71	64	0.00	25	0.06	16	0.27	32	0.29	23	0.28
Anderszewski 2003		60	0.58	43	0.00	55	0.05	58	0.05	36	0.21	68	0.10
Ashkenazy 1981		52	0.61	36	0.00	23	0.05	23	0.20	13	0.40	24	0.28
Bacha 2000		74	0.53	77	0.00	56	0.04	64	0.04	17	0.33	57	0.11
Badura 1965		80	0.50	20	0.01	50	0.05	57	0.05	38	0.29	56	0.12
Barbosa 1983		87	0.36	21	0.01	57	0.04	61	0.04	18	0.30	63	0.11
Biret 1990		33	0.66	27	0.00	20	0.06	20	0.23	11	0.49	17	0.34
Blet 2003		34	0.66	57	0.00	53	0.03	74	0.03	23	0.30	72	0.09
Block 1995		81	0.49	18	0.01	69	0.03	83	0.03	40	0.11	82	0.06
Blumental 1952		36	0.65	14	0.01	18	0.05	18	0.25	4	0.42	20	0.32
Boshniakovich 1969		35	0.66	69	0.00	45	0.04	43	0.08	35	0.23	47	0.14
Brailowsky 1960		72	0.55	78	0.00	68	0.04	62	0.04	18	0.36	53	0.12
Bunin 1987		56	0.59	85	0.00	64	0.04	68	0.04	15	0.46	48	0.14
Bunin 1987b		58	0.58	79	0.00	62	0.04	67	0.04	15	0.46	46	0.14
Chiu 1999		82	0.47	80	0.00	48	0.05	50	0.05	12	0.34	50	0.13
Cohen 1997		88	0.27	81	0.00	88	0.03	75	0.03	41	0.15	79	0.07
Cortot 1951		9	0.74	62	0.00	13	0.05	11	0.34	1	0.63	7	0.46
Csalog 1996		2	0.77	7	0.03	9	0.10	13	0.33	1	0.70	4	0.48
Czerny 1949		32	0.66	66	0.00	42	0.05	36	0.13	32	0.37	32	0.22
Czerny 1990		28	0.69	9	0.03	22	0.05	28	0.17	25	0.27	34	0.21
Duchoud 2007		77	0.51	56	0.00	73	0.03	79	0.03	26	0.24	77	0.08
Ezaki 2006		44	0.63	33	0.00	34	0.04	32	0.14	21	0.38	29	0.23
Falvay 1989		84	0.45	76	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	50	0.09	88	0.04
Farrell 1958		83	0.47	58	0.00	76	0.05	56	0.05	54	0.06	85	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		20	0.71	26	0.00	14	0.06	10	0.36	1	0.63	5	0.48
Fliere 1977		3	0.77	47	0.00	7	0.14	3	0.45	12	0.43	9	0.44
Fou 1978		42	0.64	28	0.00	39	0.03	40	0.11	17	0.35	36	0.20
Francois 1956		62	0.58	82	0.00	75	0.04	66	0.04	42	0.12	80	0.07
Friedman 1923		69	0.56	86	0.00	60	0.04	69	0.04	38	0.33	66	0.11
Friedman 1923b		70	0.55	52	0.00	59	0.04	60	0.04	36	0.33	64	0.11
Friedman 1930		61	0.58	23	0.01	63	0.03	73	0.03	33	0.35	69	0.10
Garcia 2007		26	0.69	34	0.00	40	0.04	33	0.14	14	0.46	26	0.25
Garcia 2007b		12	0.73	39	0.00	12	0.07	12	0.33	11	0.51	13	0.41
Gierzod 1998		22	0.70	73	0.00	30	0.04	30	0.15	35	0.21	42	0.18
Gornostaeva 1994		53	0.60	49	0.00	72	0.04	72	0.04	39	0.10	83	0.06
Groot 1988		68	0.56	10	0.02	36	0.04	46	0.06	27	0.33	49	0.14
Harasiewicz 1955		39	0.64	5	0.04	2	0.10	2	0.48	6	0.52	2	0.50
Hatto 1993		67	0.56	67	0.00	44	0.06	39	0.12	26	0.29	41	0.19
Hatto 1997		64	0.58	50	0.00	15	0.05	34	0.13	25	0.31	37	0.20
Horowitz 1949		50	0.61	74	0.00	65	0.04	63	0.04	40	0.28	61	0.11
Indjic 1988		65	0.57	59	0.00	43	0.04	38	0.12	29	0.29	39	0.19
Kapell 1951		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Kissin 1993		25	0.70	55	0.00	47	0.05	48	0.05	29	0.25	62	0.11
Kushner 1989		11	0.73	37	0.00	21	0.06	21	0.23	16	0.47	18	0.33
Luisada 1991		47	0.62	65	0.00	51	0.04	59	0.04	39	0.15	76	0.08
Lushtak 2004		55	0.59	53	0.00	35	0.04	27	0.17	8	0.37	27	0.25
Malcuzynski 1961		63	0.58	48	0.00	71	0.03	80	0.03	19	0.29	71	0.09
Magaloff 1978		76	0.52	30	0.00	82	0.03	82	0.03	65	0.05	87	0.04
Magin 1975		19	0.71	24	0.01	46	0.06	47	0.06	30	0.24	54	0.12
Michalowski 1933		29	0.69	16	0.01	28	0.04	35	0.13	19	0.41	30	0.23
Milkina 1970		27	0.69	31	0.00	49	0.05	54	0.05	25	0.33	51	0.13
Mohovich 1999		15	0.71	46	0.00	19	0.05	17	0.25	7	0.58	15	0.38
Moravec 1969		59	0.58	15	0.01	70	0.03	81	0.03	21	0.42	58	0.11
Morozova 2008		38	0.64	44	0.00	52	0.07	45	0.07	24	0.31	44	0.15
Neighaus 1950		43	0.63	89	0.00	24	0.05	25	0.17	31	0.27	35	0.21
Niedzielski 1931		30	0.68	83	0.00	41	0.04	37	0.12	12	0.49	28	0.24
Ohlsson 1999		51	0.61	45	0.00	26	0.05	29	0.16	31	0.27	33	0.21
Osinska 1989		21	0.70	13	0.02	31	0.05	24	0.18	24	0.36	25	0.25
Pachmann 1927		78	0.51	68	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	49	0.05	89	0.03
Paderewski 1930		31	0.68	61	0.00	37	0.03	44	0.08	16	0.38	43	0.17
Perlemuter 1992		37	0.65	60	0.00	11	0.10	15	0.30	13	0.46	16	0.37
Pierdomenico 2008		85	0.44	32	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	47	0.08	84	0.05
Poblocka 1999		4	0.76	4	0.05	4	0.10	4	0.45	10	0.52	3	0.48
Rabcewiczowa 1932		13	0.73	17	0.01	33	0.05	26	0.17	3	0.49	22	0.29
Rachmaninoff 1923		48	0.62	71	0.00	54	0.05	53	0.05	27	0.23	59	0.11
Rangell 2001		66	0.57	3	0.05	27	0.04	42	0.09	14	0.40	40	0.19
Richter 1976		75	0.53	40	0.00	74	0.04	65	0.04	33	0.36	55	0.12
Rosen 1989		10	0.74	41	0.00	29	0.04	31	0.15	20	0.35	31	0.23
Rosenthal 1930		24	0.70	54	0.00	61	0.05	52	0.05	8	0.48	45	0.15
Rosenthal 1931		46	0.62	51	0.00	79	0.03	78	0.03	22	0.32	67	0.10
Rosenthal 1931b		49	0.61	72	0.00	80	0.03	76	0.03	26	0.26	75	0.09
Rosenthal 1931c		40	0.64	35	0.00	78	0.05	55	0.05	20	0.32	52	0.13
Rosenthal 1931d		57	0.58	87	0.00	81	0.04	70	0.04	29	0.21	74	0.09
Rossi 2007		86	0.40	70	0.00	83	0.03	85	0.03	38	0.15	78	0.07
Rubinstein 1939		71	0.55	29	0.00	77	0.05	51	0.05	33	0.18	70	0.09
Rubinstein 1952		54	0.59	11	0.02	66	0.04	71	0.04	34	0.33	65	0.11
Rubinstein 1966		73	0.54	12	0.02	67	0.03	77	0.03	36	0.27	73	0.09
Schilhawsky 1960		23	0.70	42	0.00	32	0.05	22	0.21	28	0.44	21	0.30
Shebanova 2002		5	0.76	6	0.04	6	0.16	6	0.42	10	0.46	11	0.44
Smith 1975		41	0.64	38	0.00	58	0.05	49	0.05	25	0.23	60	0.11
Sokolov 2002		45	0.63	63	0.00	38	0.03	41	0.10	14	0.37	38	0.19
Sztompka 1959		17	0.71	2	0.05	5	0.13	7	0.41	11	0.44	12	0.42
Tomsic 1995		79	0.50	84	0.00	84	0.02	86	0.02	39	0.19	81	0.06
Uninsky 1932		14	0.72	19	0.01	16	0.05	19	0.24	17	0.44	19	0.32
Uninsky 1971		7	0.75	25	0.00	17	0.06	14	0.31	9	0.47	14	0.38
Wasowski 1980		16	0.71	8	0.03	10	0.09	9	0.37	3	0.53	8	0.44
Zak 1937		6	0.75	22	0.01	3	0.12	5	0.43	5	0.50	6	0.46
Zak 1951		8	0.74	75	0.00	8	0.14	8	0.40	7	0.49	10	0.44
Average		1	0.80	1	0.42	1	0.42	1	0.63	8	0.50	1	0.56
Random 1		90	-0.18	90	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	26	0.23	86	0.05
Random 2		89	-0.16	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	76	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		91	-0.19	88	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	48	0.05	91	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).