Rabcewiczowa 1932

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