Kissin 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		1	0.88	2	0.16	2	0.32	3	0.71	2	0.61	2	0.66
Anderszewski 2003		39	0.68	29	0.00	42	0.05	43	0.10	38	0.21	44	0.14
Ashkenazy 1981		47	0.66	62	0.00	27	0.06	32	0.21	23	0.29	33	0.25
Bacha 2000		86	0.43	69	0.00	86	0.03	77	0.03	59	0.04	86	0.03
Badura 1965		33	0.70	55	0.00	31	0.06	31	0.22	15	0.53	26	0.34
Barbosa 1983		87	0.39	41	0.00	87	0.04	59	0.04	68	0.04	82	0.04
Biret 1990		53	0.65	32	0.00	50	0.04	50	0.04	33	0.18	72	0.08
Blet 2003		29	0.72	54	0.00	33	0.07	38	0.18	20	0.34	32	0.25
Block 1995		69	0.58	66	0.00	67	0.03	67	0.03	58	0.04	88	0.03
Blumental 1952		65	0.60	11	0.01	34	0.07	36	0.19	23	0.20	40	0.19
Boshniakovich 1969		12	0.79	4	0.09	5	0.15	16	0.44	16	0.52	13	0.48
Brailowsky 1960		80	0.52	81	0.00	83	0.03	82	0.03	81	0.03	87	0.03
Bunin 1987		82	0.50	78	0.00	82	0.02	88	0.02	41	0.19	75	0.06
Bunin 1987b		83	0.49	60	0.00	81	0.03	86	0.03	40	0.19	70	0.08
Chiu 1999		78	0.53	74	0.00	64	0.03	65	0.03	46	0.05	81	0.04
Cohen 1997		88	0.31	59	0.00	88	0.04	58	0.04	64	0.04	84	0.04
Cortot 1951		45	0.66	58	0.00	63	0.04	49	0.04	28	0.29	60	0.11
Csalog 1996		76	0.53	19	0.01	76	0.03	76	0.03	33	0.20	71	0.08
Czerny 1949		25	0.74	47	0.00	11	0.13	12	0.48	15	0.51	12	0.49
Czerny 1990		13	0.79	49	0.00	16	0.11	17	0.43	9	0.46	18	0.44
Duchoud 2007		81	0.52	31	0.00	79	0.03	78	0.03	47	0.07	78	0.05
Ezaki 2006		23	0.75	44	0.00	26	0.05	25	0.33	12	0.49	23	0.40
Falvay 1989		73	0.54	8	0.02	77	0.03	83	0.03	42	0.22	69	0.08
Farrell 1958		54	0.65	82	0.00	49	0.04	53	0.04	28	0.31	53	0.11
Ferenczy 1958		67	0.59	70	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	52	0.05	83	0.04
Fliere 1977		9	0.80	17	0.01	7	0.15	9	0.51	13	0.42	15	0.46
Fou 1978		22	0.75	24	0.00	22	0.10	24	0.33	18	0.34	27	0.33
Francois 1956		60	0.63	48	0.00	61	0.03	69	0.03	26	0.29	68	0.09
Friedman 1923		50	0.65	79	0.00	58	0.03	79	0.03	27	0.41	61	0.11
Friedman 1923b		51	0.65	86	0.00	54	0.04	57	0.04	27	0.42	48	0.13
Friedman 1930		57	0.64	87	0.00	62	0.03	73	0.03	32	0.37	59	0.11
Garcia 2007		28	0.73	88	0.00	36	0.05	40	0.12	28	0.30	39	0.19
Garcia 2007b		37	0.69	83	0.00	47	0.04	62	0.04	35	0.24	65	0.10
Gierzod 1998		3	0.86	1	0.32	1	0.31	2	0.72	3	0.68	1	0.70
Gornostaeva 1994		61	0.62	42	0.00	66	0.03	75	0.03	43	0.09	79	0.05
Groot 1988		70	0.57	89	0.00	74	0.03	68	0.03	67	0.04	89	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		20	0.76	10	0.01	19	0.11	11	0.49	12	0.43	17	0.46
Hatto 1993		48	0.66	50	0.00	41	0.08	34	0.20	30	0.28	36	0.24
Hatto 1997		43	0.67	36	0.00	40	0.05	35	0.20	29	0.29	35	0.24
Horowitz 1949		30	0.72	61	0.00	37	0.05	41	0.12	15	0.48	34	0.24
Indjic 1988		42	0.67	80	0.00	39	0.05	33	0.21	25	0.31	31	0.26
Kapell 1951		34	0.70	56	0.00	32	0.06	29	0.25	48	0.05	54	0.11
Kissin 1993		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Kushner 1989		18	0.76	15	0.01	29	0.08	28	0.26	22	0.38	30	0.31
Luisada 1991		14	0.78	9	0.02	9	0.11	15	0.47	6	0.47	14	0.47
Lushtak 2004		40	0.68	65	0.00	43	0.04	45	0.08	27	0.21	47	0.13
Malcuzynski 1961		63	0.62	20	0.01	65	0.03	81	0.03	16	0.32	63	0.10
Magaloff 1978		62	0.62	45	0.00	60	0.04	64	0.04	20	0.33	52	0.11
Magin 1975		15	0.78	22	0.01	21	0.09	19	0.40	16	0.45	22	0.42
Michalowski 1933		52	0.65	63	0.00	56	0.04	63	0.04	24	0.28	57	0.11
Milkina 1970		16	0.77	6	0.02	12	0.13	10	0.50	7	0.56	8	0.53
Mohovich 1999		41	0.67	34	0.00	35	0.08	37	0.18	37	0.27	37	0.22
Moravec 1969		79	0.53	71	0.00	84	0.02	87	0.02	40	0.14	76	0.05
Morozova 2008		7	0.81	51	0.00	13	0.12	13	0.48	3	0.56	11	0.52
Neighaus 1950		36	0.69	38	0.00	25	0.07	27	0.30	28	0.36	28	0.33
Niedzielski 1931		35	0.70	75	0.00	30	0.08	30	0.24	22	0.43	29	0.32
Ohlsson 1999		49	0.65	26	0.00	38	0.05	39	0.13	32	0.25	41	0.18
Osinska 1989		21	0.76	27	0.00	17	0.12	18	0.43	12	0.50	16	0.46
Pachmann 1927		56	0.64	67	0.00	68	0.03	66	0.03	16	0.37	56	0.11
Paderewski 1930		46	0.66	72	0.00	52	0.04	52	0.04	23	0.32	55	0.11
Perlemuter 1992		19	0.76	68	0.00	20	0.10	22	0.39	14	0.46	20	0.42
Pierdomenico 2008		68	0.58	5	0.03	70	0.04	60	0.04	23	0.36	49	0.12
Poblocka 1999		5	0.81	18	0.01	10	0.15	6	0.54	5	0.55	4	0.54
Rabcewiczowa 1932		38	0.69	46	0.00	46	0.04	51	0.04	26	0.24	62	0.10
Rachmaninoff 1923		27	0.73	37	0.00	18	0.10	20	0.40	8	0.44	21	0.42
Rangell 2001		85	0.44	39	0.00	80	0.03	85	0.03	47	0.05	85	0.04
Richter 1976		32	0.70	23	0.00	48	0.04	54	0.04	13	0.52	43	0.14
Rosen 1989		24	0.74	33	0.00	24	0.08	26	0.33	19	0.38	25	0.35
Rosenthal 1930		59	0.63	76	0.00	57	0.03	84	0.03	12	0.34	64	0.10
Rosenthal 1931		74	0.54	52	0.00	72	0.04	55	0.04	24	0.30	58	0.11
Rosenthal 1931b		75	0.53	90	0.00	73	0.03	74	0.03	24	0.27	67	0.09
Rosenthal 1931c		72	0.55	53	0.00	69	0.05	48	0.05	24	0.31	51	0.12
Rosenthal 1931d		77	0.53	84	0.00	71	0.03	71	0.03	26	0.25	66	0.09
Rossi 2007		84	0.49	57	0.00	85	0.03	70	0.03	50	0.06	80	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		55	0.65	77	0.00	55	0.04	61	0.04	14	0.38	50	0.12
Rubinstein 1952		71	0.56	13	0.01	45	0.05	44	0.09	36	0.31	42	0.17
Rubinstein 1966		64	0.61	25	0.00	44	0.04	42	0.10	26	0.35	38	0.19
Schilhawsky 1960		10	0.80	7	0.02	6	0.14	14	0.48	7	0.58	9	0.53
Shebanova 2002		8	0.81	16	0.01	4	0.19	4	0.61	9	0.48	6	0.54
Smith 1975		44	0.66	21	0.01	59	0.03	72	0.03	39	0.10	77	0.05
Sokolov 2002		58	0.64	14	0.01	51	0.05	47	0.05	17	0.34	45	0.13
Sztompka 1959		11	0.79	12	0.01	8	0.13	5	0.55	10	0.49	10	0.52
Tomsic 1995		66	0.60	43	0.00	75	0.04	56	0.04	20	0.44	46	0.13
Uninsky 1932		17	0.77	64	0.00	23	0.07	21	0.40	15	0.47	19	0.43
Uninsky 1971		26	0.74	35	0.00	28	0.06	23	0.37	25	0.40	24	0.38
Wasowski 1980		31	0.70	40	0.00	53	0.05	46	0.05	48	0.08	73	0.06
Zak 1937		4	0.82	30	0.00	14	0.13	7	0.53	4	0.54	7	0.53
Zak 1951		6	0.81	28	0.00	15	0.18	8	0.53	4	0.55	5	0.54
Average		2	0.86	3	0.13	3	0.34	1	0.74	6	0.53	3	0.63
Random 1		90	-0.22	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	56	0.04	90	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.10	73	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	30	0.17	74	0.06
Random 3		91	-0.25	85	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	69	0.03	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).