Schilhawsky 1960

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		4	0.83	31	0.00	5	0.17	6	0.59	11	0.46	10	0.52
Anderszewski 2003		46	0.64	29	0.01	52	0.04	64	0.04	54	0.05	68	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		52	0.58	48	0.00	38	0.08	38	0.29	40	0.14	42	0.20
Bacha 2000		80	0.38	65	0.00	72	0.04	76	0.04	66	0.04	62	0.04
Badura 1965		29	0.70	20	0.01	27	0.09	34	0.36	21	0.47	27	0.41
Barbosa 1983		81	0.38	88	0.00	75	0.04	70	0.04	50	0.05	67	0.04
Biret 1990		68	0.49	26	0.01	61	0.05	59	0.05	82	0.03	74	0.04
Blet 2003		33	0.69	77	0.00	47	0.06	51	0.06	30	0.24	47	0.12
Block 1995		59	0.53	90	0.00	50	0.05	54	0.05	62	0.04	70	0.04
Blumental 1952		67	0.50	32	0.00	56	0.05	60	0.05	80	0.03	71	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		14	0.75	18	0.01	21	0.08	15	0.48	18	0.49	14	0.48
Brailowsky 1960		73	0.45	78	0.00	74	0.03	79	0.03	82	0.03	78	0.03
Bunin 1987		44	0.64	27	0.01	14	0.09	33	0.37	2	0.58	21	0.46
Bunin 1987b		45	0.64	6	0.04	13	0.09	32	0.38	2	0.58	17	0.47
Chiu 1999		71	0.47	30	0.01	57	0.06	53	0.06	82	0.03	64	0.04
Cohen 1997		88	0.21	66	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	76	0.03	90	0.02
Cortot 1951		22	0.73	25	0.01	28	0.13	20	0.47	4	0.56	11	0.51
Csalog 1996		78	0.41	67	0.00	68	0.04	74	0.04	81	0.03	84	0.03
Czerny 1949		1	0.86	1	0.29	1	0.29	2	0.65	2	0.66	1	0.65
Czerny 1990		28	0.70	41	0.00	46	0.05	56	0.05	85	0.03	73	0.04
Duchoud 2007		63	0.50	24	0.01	43	0.08	44	0.17	27	0.23	40	0.20
Ezaki 2006		42	0.66	73	0.00	49	0.08	47	0.08	55	0.04	54	0.06
Falvay 1989		87	0.22	84	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	77	0.03	88	0.02
Farrell 1958		66	0.50	54	0.00	65	0.04	72	0.04	79	0.04	66	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		48	0.61	49	0.00	51	0.05	57	0.05	36	0.11	52	0.07
Fliere 1977		2	0.85	8	0.03	3	0.16	3	0.63	7	0.47	7	0.54
Fou 1978		55	0.57	75	0.00	58	0.06	50	0.06	50	0.05	56	0.05
Francois 1956		60	0.52	14	0.01	71	0.04	68	0.04	82	0.03	87	0.03
Friedman 1923		27	0.71	52	0.00	34	0.07	29	0.44	13	0.52	16	0.48
Friedman 1923b		25	0.71	60	0.00	33	0.08	26	0.44	13	0.52	15	0.48
Friedman 1930		36	0.68	40	0.00	41	0.09	40	0.22	19	0.46	36	0.32
Garcia 2007		30	0.70	46	0.00	40	0.13	35	0.36	15	0.45	28	0.40
Garcia 2007b		47	0.63	44	0.00	39	0.10	36	0.36	19	0.42	30	0.39
Gierzod 1998		9	0.79	22	0.01	12	0.12	14	0.51	21	0.40	23	0.45
Gornostaeva 1994		69	0.49	58	0.00	67	0.04	69	0.04	78	0.03	85	0.03
Groot 1988		70	0.48	62	0.00	66	0.04	62	0.04	59	0.05	75	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		13	0.76	50	0.00	19	0.08	12	0.54	19	0.37	24	0.45
Hatto 1993		20	0.74	51	0.00	18	0.10	23	0.46	13	0.47	22	0.46
Hatto 1997		18	0.75	56	0.00	16	0.09	22	0.47	13	0.46	20	0.46
Horowitz 1949		12	0.76	61	0.00	15	0.11	13	0.53	1	0.62	4	0.57
Indjic 1988		17	0.75	70	0.00	17	0.08	19	0.47	13	0.46	19	0.46
Kapell 1951		31	0.70	28	0.01	25	0.10	28	0.44	22	0.21	38	0.30
Kissin 1993		7	0.80	5	0.04	7	0.19	7	0.58	14	0.48	8	0.53
Kushner 1989		41	0.66	59	0.00	53	0.05	58	0.05	61	0.05	57	0.05
Luisada 1991		40	0.66	89	0.00	48	0.09	46	0.09	57	0.05	51	0.07
Lushtak 2004		43	0.65	17	0.01	29	0.10	39	0.24	36	0.17	41	0.20
Malcuzynski 1961		53	0.57	23	0.01	32	0.09	43	0.17	15	0.33	39	0.24
Magaloff 1978		72	0.45	79	0.00	76	0.04	75	0.04	82	0.03	80	0.03
Magin 1975		35	0.68	19	0.01	35	0.06	30	0.42	32	0.22	37	0.30
Michalowski 1933		34	0.69	10	0.02	20	0.08	21	0.47	7	0.54	12	0.50
Milkina 1970		51	0.58	71	0.00	64	0.07	49	0.07	64	0.04	58	0.05
Mohovich 1999		61	0.51	86	0.00	60	0.04	65	0.04	72	0.04	72	0.04
Moravec 1969		77	0.41	34	0.00	84	0.04	63	0.04	67	0.04	63	0.04
Morozova 2008		24	0.72	53	0.00	36	0.06	37	0.33	20	0.36	34	0.34
Neighaus 1950		23	0.73	11	0.02	10	0.11	11	0.56	13	0.50	9	0.53
Niedzielski 1931		15	0.75	33	0.00	30	0.08	17	0.47	10	0.50	13	0.48
Ohlsson 1999		38	0.67	35	0.00	26	0.10	24	0.45	15	0.40	26	0.42
Osinska 1989		39	0.67	21	0.01	45	0.07	45	0.14	38	0.19	45	0.16
Pachmann 1927		49	0.59	91	0.00	55	0.05	61	0.05	28	0.25	48	0.11
Paderewski 1930		57	0.54	63	0.00	59	0.04	66	0.04	79	0.03	83	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		32	0.70	42	0.00	37	0.09	31	0.38	17	0.34	31	0.36
Pierdomenico 2008		83	0.35	57	0.00	83	0.03	78	0.03	68	0.04	82	0.03
Poblocka 1999		3	0.84	4	0.06	2	0.14	4	0.60	6	0.55	3	0.57
Rabcewiczowa 1932		54	0.57	43	0.00	62	0.08	48	0.08	53	0.05	55	0.06
Rachmaninoff 1923		26	0.71	7	0.03	31	0.08	16	0.48	10	0.40	25	0.44
Rangell 2001		86	0.23	80	0.00	77	0.03	77	0.03	68	0.03	86	0.03
Richter 1976		5	0.81	2	0.12	6	0.20	9	0.57	2	0.67	2	0.62
Rosen 1989		56	0.56	72	0.00	63	0.05	55	0.05	58	0.05	60	0.05
Rosenthal 1930		50	0.59	37	0.00	54	0.06	52	0.06	17	0.31	46	0.14
Rosenthal 1931		76	0.41	74	0.00	80	0.02	85	0.02	45	0.11	59	0.05
Rosenthal 1931b		75	0.41	45	0.00	79	0.02	87	0.02	44	0.09	76	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		74	0.44	76	0.00	78	0.04	73	0.04	45	0.11	53	0.07
Rosenthal 1931d		79	0.39	38	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	43	0.10	61	0.05
Rossi 2007		85	0.30	68	0.00	85	0.03	83	0.03	85	0.03	79	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		65	0.50	55	0.00	69	0.03	80	0.03	55	0.05	65	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		82	0.35	64	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	52	0.06	77	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		62	0.51	83	0.00	70	0.04	67	0.04	54	0.05	69	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Shebanova 2002		11	0.77	16	0.01	11	0.15	8	0.58	17	0.38	18	0.47
Smith 1975		64	0.50	39	0.00	73	0.04	71	0.04	78	0.03	81	0.03
Sokolov 2002		58	0.54	12	0.01	42	0.08	41	0.18	35	0.18	43	0.18
Sztompka 1959		21	0.73	47	0.00	24	0.09	18	0.47	26	0.32	29	0.39
Tomsic 1995		84	0.31	87	0.00	87	0.02	84	0.02	88	0.02	89	0.02
Uninsky 1932		10	0.78	9	0.02	8	0.24	10	0.56	3	0.56	6	0.56
Uninsky 1971		6	0.80	3	0.08	4	0.14	5	0.59	2	0.53	5	0.56
Wasowski 1980		37	0.67	15	0.01	44	0.08	42	0.17	30	0.18	44	0.17
Zak 1937		16	0.75	85	0.00	22	0.09	25	0.44	22	0.26	32	0.34
Zak 1951		19	0.74	36	0.00	23	0.09	27	0.44	24	0.26	33	0.34
Average		8	0.80	13	0.01	9	0.16	1	0.66	39	0.17	35	0.33
Random 1		90	-0.06	81	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	11	0.43	50	0.09
Random 2		89	-0.02	69	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	10	0.42	49	0.09
Random 3		91	-0.29	82	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	86	0.02	91	0.01

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).