Richter 1976

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	0.68	26	0.00	15	0.13	20	0.47	60	0.04	29	0.14
Anderszewski 2003		33	0.56	41	0.00	40	0.12	39	0.28	76	0.03	42	0.09
Ashkenazy 1981		46	0.52	15	0.01	21	0.07	35	0.36	55	0.04	40	0.12
Bacha 2000		82	0.17	74	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	84	0.03	67	0.03
Badura 1965		7	0.72	6	0.03	9	0.20	8	0.59	14	0.53	5	0.56
Barbosa 1983		77	0.24	25	0.01	75	0.03	71	0.03	77	0.03	75	0.03
Biret 1990		67	0.32	80	0.00	64	0.04	67	0.04	74	0.04	66	0.04
Blet 2003		45	0.52	45	0.00	54	0.06	52	0.06	69	0.04	54	0.05
Block 1995		24	0.61	58	0.00	34	0.08	37	0.31	44	0.08	22	0.16
Blumental 1952		78	0.22	83	0.00	69	0.03	76	0.03	82	0.03	77	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		4	0.78	4	0.05	4	0.23	4	0.62	19	0.47	7	0.54
Brailowsky 1960		66	0.33	68	0.00	70	0.03	75	0.03	84	0.03	68	0.03
Bunin 1987		12	0.68	78	0.00	8	0.21	10	0.55	3	0.57	6	0.56
Bunin 1987b		14	0.68	8	0.02	7	0.22	9	0.55	3	0.57	4	0.56
Chiu 1999		64	0.35	71	0.00	61	0.06	56	0.06	53	0.04	51	0.05
Cohen 1997		88	0.02	65	0.00	89	0.02	86	0.02	87	0.02	88	0.02
Cortot 1951		19	0.62	20	0.01	18	0.10	12	0.53	32	0.22	11	0.34
Csalog 1996		75	0.25	32	0.00	68	0.04	68	0.04	78	0.03	76	0.03
Czerny 1949		11	0.69	67	0.00	10	0.14	14	0.51	35	0.32	10	0.40
Czerny 1990		61	0.40	81	0.00	65	0.04	66	0.04	88	0.03	80	0.03
Duchoud 2007		54	0.47	38	0.00	30	0.07	38	0.29	33	0.18	18	0.23
Ezaki 2006		34	0.56	60	0.00	45	0.06	46	0.12	81	0.03	47	0.06
Falvay 1989		86	0.11	47	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	84	0.02	85	0.02
Farrell 1958		65	0.34	52	0.00	71	0.03	70	0.03	74	0.04	73	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		47	0.51	46	0.00	50	0.05	62	0.05	32	0.14	45	0.08
Fliere 1977		9	0.70	14	0.01	11	0.15	6	0.60	47	0.05	20	0.17
Fou 1978		51	0.49	28	0.00	51	0.05	63	0.05	78	0.03	61	0.04
Francois 1956		73	0.27	55	0.00	79	0.03	79	0.03	75	0.03	82	0.03
Friedman 1923		26	0.59	36	0.00	32	0.08	25	0.45	43	0.18	16	0.28
Friedman 1923b		27	0.59	19	0.01	31	0.06	24	0.45	43	0.19	13	0.29
Friedman 1930		32	0.56	12	0.02	33	0.08	29	0.40	45	0.15	17	0.24
Garcia 2007		36	0.55	50	0.00	47	0.12	45	0.12	65	0.04	46	0.07
Garcia 2007b		44	0.52	56	0.00	43	0.06	40	0.20	79	0.04	43	0.09
Gierzod 1998		23	0.61	61	0.00	35	0.09	34	0.36	68	0.04	39	0.12
Gornostaeva 1994		57	0.42	75	0.00	56	0.06	57	0.06	87	0.02	79	0.03
Groot 1988		58	0.41	76	0.00	58	0.06	55	0.06	71	0.04	57	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		6	0.75	13	0.01	5	0.24	5	0.61	16	0.40	9	0.49
Hatto 1993		31	0.56	18	0.01	29	0.09	17	0.50	45	0.10	19	0.22
Hatto 1997		29	0.57	82	0.00	24	0.06	15	0.51	65	0.05	21	0.16
Horowitz 1949		2	0.80	2	0.19	2	0.31	7	0.59	3	0.56	2	0.57
Indjic 1988		30	0.57	84	0.00	28	0.06	16	0.51	67	0.04	28	0.14
Kapell 1951		42	0.53	23	0.01	39	0.12	33	0.36	65	0.04	35	0.12
Kissin 1993		10	0.70	7	0.02	12	0.10	13	0.52	54	0.04	27	0.14
Kushner 1989		49	0.49	48	0.00	55	0.06	49	0.06	88	0.02	74	0.03
Luisada 1991		39	0.53	85	0.00	52	0.05	61	0.05	80	0.03	58	0.04
Lushtak 2004		53	0.48	35	0.00	25	0.05	44	0.14	77	0.03	49	0.06
Malcuzynski 1961		35	0.55	11	0.02	20	0.07	36	0.35	27	0.23	14	0.28
Magaloff 1978		76	0.24	86	0.00	80	0.03	74	0.03	80	0.04	69	0.03
Magin 1975		22	0.61	44	0.00	36	0.08	30	0.38	62	0.04	34	0.12
Michalowski 1933		25	0.59	87	0.00	23	0.07	23	0.45	36	0.18	15	0.28
Milkina 1970		56	0.45	27	0.00	57	0.07	48	0.07	54	0.05	48	0.06
Mohovich 1999		63	0.37	73	0.00	63	0.06	50	0.06	88	0.03	64	0.04
Moravec 1969		84	0.14	72	0.00	88	0.02	85	0.02	86	0.02	83	0.02
Morozova 2008		15	0.64	33	0.00	19	0.10	31	0.38	63	0.04	37	0.12
Neighaus 1950		17	0.63	62	0.00	14	0.11	18	0.48	79	0.04	30	0.14
Niedzielski 1931		48	0.50	88	0.00	48	0.06	51	0.06	48	0.05	52	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		41	0.53	53	0.00	22	0.07	27	0.41	50	0.05	26	0.14
Osinska 1989		50	0.49	79	0.00	53	0.05	60	0.05	83	0.03	59	0.04
Pachmann 1927		43	0.53	69	0.00	49	0.06	54	0.06	54	0.04	53	0.05
Paderewski 1930		60	0.41	63	0.00	62	0.05	59	0.05	72	0.03	62	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		38	0.54	70	0.00	46	0.09	47	0.09	81	0.03	50	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		70	0.30	31	0.00	72	0.04	65	0.04	87	0.02	70	0.03
Poblocka 1999		3	0.79	3	0.10	3	0.19	1	0.67	14	0.47	3	0.56
Rabcewiczowa 1932		69	0.30	22	0.01	74	0.03	77	0.03	75	0.04	72	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		40	0.53	34	0.00	41	0.07	41	0.20	75	0.03	44	0.08
Rangell 2001		68	0.30	42	0.00	59	0.05	58	0.05	80	0.03	65	0.04
Richter 1976		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosen 1989		59	0.41	30	0.00	60	0.06	53	0.06	70	0.04	56	0.05
Rosenthal 1930		55	0.46	16	0.01	42	0.07	43	0.15	34	0.12	32	0.13
Rosenthal 1931		81	0.20	89	0.00	85	0.02	84	0.02	88	0.03	87	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		80	0.20	57	0.00	84	0.01	88	0.01	88	0.03	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		79	0.21	49	0.00	77	0.03	78	0.03	77	0.03	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		83	0.17	90	0.00	86	0.02	82	0.02	87	0.02	89	0.02
Rossi 2007		85	0.13	51	0.00	87	0.01	89	0.01	82	0.03	84	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		71	0.29	24	0.01	73	0.03	72	0.03	73	0.04	71	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		87	0.10	21	0.01	82	0.02	83	0.02	86	0.03	91	0.02
Rubinstein 1966		74	0.25	59	0.00	76	0.04	69	0.04	69	0.04	63	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		1	0.81	1	0.29	1	0.28	2	0.67	9	0.57	1	0.62
Shebanova 2002		28	0.58	77	0.00	38	0.09	28	0.40	57	0.04	31	0.13
Smith 1975		62	0.37	17	0.01	66	0.05	64	0.05	86	0.03	60	0.04
Sokolov 2002		52	0.48	37	0.00	37	0.08	32	0.37	47	0.05	24	0.14
Sztompka 1959		20	0.62	10	0.02	27	0.06	26	0.43	61	0.05	23	0.15
Tomsic 1995		72	0.29	29	0.00	81	0.02	81	0.02	84	0.02	86	0.02
Uninsky 1932		8	0.70	43	0.00	13	0.11	11	0.53	43	0.19	12	0.32
Uninsky 1971		5	0.75	5	0.04	6	0.25	3	0.62	13	0.45	8	0.53
Wasowski 1980		37	0.54	39	0.00	44	0.08	42	0.18	51	0.06	41	0.10
Zak 1937		18	0.62	66	0.00	16	0.08	19	0.47	68	0.04	25	0.14
Zak 1951		21	0.62	64	0.00	17	0.07	21	0.47	72	0.03	36	0.12
Average		16	0.63	9	0.02	26	0.05	22	0.46	81	0.03	38	0.12
Random 1		89	-0.03	54	0.00	67	0.03	73	0.03	5	0.55	33	0.13
Random 2		90	-0.11	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	16	0.30	55	0.05
Random 3		91	-0.17	40	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	45	0.07	78	0.03

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).