Rangell 2001

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

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).