Milkina 1970

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		13	0.76	13	0.01	13	0.09	10	0.49	27	0.31	14	0.39
Anderszewski 2003		10	0.77	28	0.00	15	0.08	11	0.49	8	0.42	11	0.45
Ashkenazy 1981		67	0.60	54	0.00	51	0.04	61	0.04	60	0.04	84	0.04
Bacha 2000		32	0.68	12	0.01	18	0.08	24	0.33	7	0.44	17	0.38
Badura 1965		66	0.61	34	0.00	78	0.05	52	0.05	41	0.20	54	0.10
Barbosa 1983		85	0.41	8	0.03	19	0.08	38	0.18	26	0.22	38	0.20
Biret 1990		5	0.78	10	0.02	7	0.18	5	0.62	2	0.69	2	0.65
Blet 2003		36	0.67	42	0.00	41	0.06	42	0.15	27	0.28	39	0.20
Block 1995		60	0.63	83	0.00	34	0.06	37	0.19	15	0.31	35	0.24
Blumental 1952		48	0.65	5	0.04	10	0.12	27	0.31	22	0.20	34	0.25
Boshniakovich 1969		39	0.67	32	0.00	48	0.05	50	0.05	68	0.05	70	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		26	0.70	86	0.00	60	0.03	71	0.03	23	0.31	52	0.10
Bunin 1987		87	0.31	72	0.00	88	0.04	70	0.04	54	0.06	72	0.05
Bunin 1987b		88	0.30	80	0.00	87	0.04	63	0.04	71	0.04	76	0.04
Chiu 1999		76	0.56	67	0.00	59	0.03	73	0.03	50	0.04	88	0.03
Cohen 1997		86	0.37	35	0.00	85	0.04	67	0.04	42	0.13	59	0.07
Cortot 1951		55	0.64	68	0.00	72	0.03	78	0.03	54	0.04	90	0.03
Csalog 1996		77	0.56	14	0.01	70	0.03	80	0.03	19	0.34	53	0.10
Czerny 1949		47	0.65	26	0.00	46	0.07	46	0.07	54	0.05	62	0.06
Czerny 1990		11	0.77	51	0.00	12	0.09	13	0.48	11	0.45	9	0.46
Duchoud 2007		82	0.54	60	0.00	61	0.03	74	0.03	34	0.16	58	0.07
Ezaki 2006		6	0.78	20	0.01	5	0.14	6	0.57	4	0.58	5	0.57
Falvay 1989		53	0.64	53	0.00	76	0.03	81	0.03	12	0.52	50	0.12
Farrell 1958		31	0.68	73	0.00	22	0.07	17	0.41	13	0.49	10	0.45
Ferenczy 1958		74	0.57	87	0.00	84	0.04	57	0.04	73	0.03	89	0.03
Fliere 1977		19	0.73	62	0.00	23	0.07	26	0.32	62	0.04	51	0.11
Fou 1978		8	0.77	4	0.05	6	0.14	8	0.56	4	0.53	6	0.54
Francois 1956		37	0.67	57	0.00	62	0.03	72	0.03	29	0.25	57	0.09
Friedman 1923		68	0.60	63	0.00	73	0.04	62	0.04	61	0.05	87	0.04
Friedman 1923b		70	0.60	58	0.00	69	0.03	77	0.03	56	0.05	85	0.04
Friedman 1930		69	0.60	31	0.00	79	0.03	88	0.03	62	0.05	81	0.04
Garcia 2007		35	0.67	84	0.00	50	0.05	55	0.05	56	0.05	69	0.05
Garcia 2007b		41	0.66	81	0.00	49	0.05	53	0.05	56	0.05	74	0.05
Gierzod 1998		14	0.76	21	0.01	11	0.10	9	0.50	27	0.31	15	0.39
Gornostaeva 1994		16	0.74	44	0.00	26	0.06	21	0.38	14	0.33	21	0.35
Groot 1988		58	0.64	64	0.00	38	0.05	34	0.21	26	0.33	33	0.26
Harasiewicz 1955		17	0.74	16	0.01	14	0.09	14	0.48	26	0.32	16	0.39
Hatto 1993		83	0.52	88	0.00	81	0.05	49	0.05	60	0.05	73	0.05
Hatto 1997		81	0.54	89	0.00	82	0.05	51	0.05	59	0.05	67	0.05
Horowitz 1949		59	0.64	69	0.00	68	0.03	85	0.03	55	0.06	77	0.04
Indjic 1988		79	0.54	30	0.00	80	0.04	68	0.04	56	0.05	80	0.04
Kapell 1951		29	0.69	38	0.00	33	0.08	25	0.33	54	0.05	48	0.13
Kissin 1993		7	0.77	7	0.04	8	0.21	7	0.56	10	0.50	7	0.53
Kushner 1989		12	0.77	45	0.00	27	0.07	19	0.40	26	0.33	19	0.36
Luisada 1991		20	0.72	25	0.00	9	0.13	12	0.49	22	0.30	18	0.38
Lushtak 2004		75	0.57	78	0.00	63	0.04	65	0.04	57	0.04	82	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		30	0.69	56	0.00	35	0.07	40	0.17	12	0.39	31	0.26
Magaloff 1978		24	0.71	52	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	6	0.44	36	0.23
Magin 1975		28	0.69	37	0.00	28	0.07	22	0.34	31	0.22	28	0.27
Michalowski 1933		50	0.65	74	0.00	75	0.03	75	0.03	54	0.05	79	0.04
Milkina 1970		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Mohovich 1999		4	0.82	1	0.24	1	0.24	3	0.63	2	0.73	1	0.68
Moravec 1969		64	0.62	47	0.00	66	0.03	76	0.03	15	0.48	49	0.12
Morozova 2008		46	0.66	11	0.02	39	0.05	35	0.20	37	0.18	40	0.19
Neighaus 1950		49	0.65	36	0.00	71	0.03	79	0.03	57	0.05	86	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		71	0.59	90	0.00	65	0.03	86	0.03	49	0.05	75	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		44	0.66	40	0.00	47	0.07	47	0.07	60	0.05	61	0.06
Osinska 1989		2	0.83	3	0.08	3	0.19	4	0.62	2	0.62	4	0.62
Pachmann 1927		65	0.61	75	0.00	83	0.03	87	0.03	45	0.10	64	0.05
Paderewski 1930		56	0.64	91	0.00	77	0.04	69	0.04	46	0.04	78	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		27	0.69	55	0.00	40	0.05	32	0.21	41	0.14	42	0.17
Pierdomenico 2008		80	0.54	50	0.00	74	0.03	84	0.03	31	0.26	55	0.09
Poblocka 1999		52	0.64	15	0.01	55	0.04	59	0.04	51	0.06	63	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		21	0.72	85	0.00	42	0.05	44	0.14	27	0.23	41	0.18
Rachmaninoff 1923		18	0.73	23	0.01	16	0.09	23	0.34	21	0.33	23	0.33
Rangell 2001		63	0.62	48	0.00	31	0.07	36	0.19	2	0.55	26	0.32
Richter 1976		84	0.45	19	0.01	86	0.05	54	0.05	48	0.07	60	0.06
Rosen 1989		3	0.82	6	0.04	4	0.27	2	0.64	3	0.64	3	0.64
Rosenthal 1930		57	0.64	59	0.00	67	0.03	83	0.03	20	0.29	56	0.09
Rosenthal 1931		40	0.66	77	0.00	54	0.04	58	0.04	9	0.52	46	0.14
Rosenthal 1931b		45	0.66	29	0.00	57	0.04	60	0.04	11	0.51	47	0.14
Rosenthal 1931c		61	0.63	9	0.02	58	0.06	48	0.06	10	0.47	43	0.17
Rosenthal 1931d		38	0.67	46	0.00	56	0.04	56	0.04	9	0.53	45	0.15
Rossi 2007		23	0.71	66	0.00	32	0.06	30	0.26	3	0.60	13	0.39
Rubinstein 1939		62	0.63	39	0.00	36	0.05	33	0.21	6	0.50	25	0.32
Rubinstein 1952		78	0.55	41	0.00	44	0.06	41	0.16	8	0.52	27	0.29
Rubinstein 1966		42	0.66	22	0.01	24	0.09	31	0.26	11	0.46	20	0.35
Schilhawsky 1960		72	0.58	61	0.00	52	0.04	64	0.04	49	0.07	66	0.05
Shebanova 2002		15	0.75	43	0.00	25	0.08	16	0.41	42	0.16	32	0.26
Smith 1975		22	0.71	79	0.00	29	0.07	28	0.31	16	0.36	24	0.33
Sokolov 2002		51	0.64	27	0.00	37	0.05	43	0.15	24	0.26	37	0.20
Sztompka 1959		9	0.77	18	0.01	17	0.08	15	0.45	30	0.26	22	0.34
Tomsic 1995		54	0.64	70	0.00	30	0.07	29	0.29	4	0.64	12	0.43
Uninsky 1932		43	0.66	71	0.00	53	0.04	66	0.04	48	0.07	68	0.05
Uninsky 1971		73	0.57	17	0.01	64	0.03	82	0.03	49	0.07	65	0.05
Wasowski 1980		34	0.68	33	0.00	43	0.06	39	0.18	40	0.12	44	0.15
Zak 1937		25	0.70	24	0.01	21	0.09	20	0.40	34	0.17	30	0.26
Zak 1951		33	0.68	49	0.00	20	0.08	18	0.40	36	0.18	29	0.27
Average		1	0.85	2	0.19	2	0.21	1	0.70	23	0.32	8	0.47
Random 1		91	-0.20	65	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	34	0.16	83	0.04
Random 2		90	-0.15	82	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	53	0.04	91	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.14	76	0.00	90	0.01	89	0.01	35	0.21	71	0.05

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).