Malcuzynski 1961

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

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).