Sztompka 1959

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	0.85	5	0.02	6	0.17	5	0.54	8	0.49	12	0.51
Anderszewski 2003		25	0.75	44	0.00	42	0.05	36	0.17	9	0.39	39	0.26
Ashkenazy 1981		14	0.79	12	0.01	11	0.09	9	0.49	3	0.61	7	0.55
Bacha 2000		59	0.66	84	0.00	63	0.07	47	0.07	20	0.28	56	0.14
Badura 1965		45	0.71	30	0.00	54	0.05	65	0.05	10	0.54	50	0.16
Barbosa 1983		82	0.47	69	0.00	71	0.04	72	0.04	42	0.10	76	0.06
Biret 1990		33	0.73	31	0.00	44	0.06	38	0.16	12	0.47	37	0.27
Blet 2003		56	0.67	46	0.00	58	0.06	53	0.06	12	0.38	54	0.15
Block 1995		61	0.63	62	0.00	38	0.05	45	0.11	6	0.43	42	0.22
Blumental 1952		66	0.61	29	0.00	49	0.05	59	0.05	19	0.21	69	0.10
Boshniakovich 1969		16	0.77	76	0.00	21	0.11	18	0.40	3	0.58	14	0.48
Brailowsky 1960		60	0.64	53	0.00	70	0.04	70	0.04	42	0.12	74	0.07
Bunin 1987		80	0.48	79	0.00	74	0.03	78	0.03	34	0.24	73	0.08
Bunin 1987b		83	0.47	65	0.00	73	0.04	76	0.04	33	0.24	66	0.10
Chiu 1999		71	0.59	52	0.00	67	0.06	52	0.06	47	0.05	77	0.05
Cohen 1997		88	0.36	77	0.00	88	0.04	75	0.04	55	0.04	80	0.04
Cortot 1951		44	0.71	37	0.00	50	0.07	50	0.07	7	0.51	46	0.19
Csalog 1996		86	0.41	63	0.00	72	0.03	86	0.03	60	0.04	87	0.03
Czerny 1949		11	0.80	3	0.06	8	0.17	13	0.43	13	0.52	17	0.47
Czerny 1990		24	0.75	7	0.02	31	0.06	33	0.24	14	0.38	35	0.30
Duchoud 2007		57	0.66	42	0.00	48	0.05	62	0.05	6	0.48	55	0.15
Ezaki 2006		35	0.72	89	0.00	57	0.05	56	0.05	32	0.22	65	0.10
Falvay 1989		85	0.46	55	0.00	87	0.03	77	0.03	69	0.04	85	0.03
Farrell 1958		42	0.72	6	0.02	27	0.05	37	0.17	8	0.52	34	0.30
Ferenczy 1958		65	0.61	70	0.00	66	0.05	58	0.05	28	0.24	64	0.11
Fliere 1977		5	0.84	11	0.01	5	0.15	6	0.53	4	0.53	8	0.53
Fou 1978		15	0.78	26	0.00	17	0.10	21	0.40	3	0.57	13	0.48
Francois 1956		37	0.72	33	0.00	41	0.05	43	0.13	6	0.55	38	0.27
Friedman 1923		38	0.72	66	0.00	56	0.04	73	0.04	28	0.40	62	0.13
Friedman 1923b		39	0.72	73	0.00	53	0.05	67	0.05	28	0.41	58	0.14
Friedman 1930		41	0.72	64	0.00	59	0.07	48	0.07	25	0.41	49	0.17
Garcia 2007		9	0.82	36	0.00	12	0.09	17	0.41	3	0.65	10	0.52
Garcia 2007b		7	0.83	28	0.00	7	0.18	7	0.53	2	0.69	3	0.60
Gierzod 1998		6	0.84	16	0.01	3	0.16	3	0.57	6	0.58	4	0.57
Gornostaeva 1994		34	0.73	21	0.01	39	0.05	42	0.14	7	0.45	41	0.25
Groot 1988		62	0.63	15	0.01	60	0.06	51	0.06	28	0.31	60	0.14
Harasiewicz 1955		18	0.77	35	0.00	19	0.09	15	0.41	13	0.43	22	0.42
Hatto 1993		54	0.69	85	0.00	37	0.08	35	0.22	19	0.37	36	0.29
Hatto 1997		51	0.71	90	0.00	35	0.05	32	0.25	15	0.42	33	0.32
Horowitz 1949		43	0.71	74	0.00	55	0.05	66	0.05	23	0.45	52	0.15
Indjic 1988		48	0.71	86	0.00	36	0.09	31	0.25	16	0.42	32	0.32
Kapell 1951		47	0.71	25	0.01	9	0.15	11	0.44	7	0.41	21	0.42
Kissin 1993		12	0.79	10	0.01	14	0.10	10	0.49	5	0.55	9	0.52
Kushner 1989		10	0.81	14	0.01	13	0.10	8	0.50	3	0.60	6	0.55
Luisada 1991		29	0.74	57	0.00	40	0.05	40	0.16	26	0.25	43	0.20
Lushtak 2004		58	0.66	40	0.00	61	0.05	60	0.05	29	0.20	68	0.10
Malcuzynski 1961		67	0.60	17	0.01	68	0.05	55	0.05	20	0.28	63	0.12
Magaloff 1978		63	0.62	67	0.00	69	0.05	57	0.05	48	0.08	75	0.06
Magin 1975		21	0.77	27	0.00	15	0.09	16	0.41	7	0.54	16	0.47
Michalowski 1933		19	0.77	45	0.00	24	0.08	24	0.32	1	0.62	19	0.45
Milkina 1970		17	0.77	23	0.01	30	0.06	30	0.26	15	0.45	31	0.34
Mohovich 1999		31	0.74	54	0.00	46	0.07	49	0.07	14	0.48	47	0.18
Moravec 1969		81	0.48	47	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	56	0.05	83	0.03
Morozova 2008		27	0.74	43	0.00	29	0.06	28	0.30	9	0.48	25	0.38
Neighaus 1950		3	0.86	18	0.01	4	0.18	4	0.56	4	0.58	5	0.57
Niedzielski 1931		49	0.71	48	0.00	32	0.06	34	0.23	11	0.50	30	0.34
Ohlsson 1999		8	0.82	19	0.01	10	0.13	12	0.44	5	0.60	11	0.51
Osinska 1989		13	0.79	9	0.01	18	0.09	19	0.40	8	0.56	15	0.47
Pachmann 1927		68	0.60	75	0.00	78	0.05	68	0.05	30	0.22	67	0.10
Paderewski 1930		55	0.69	51	0.00	62	0.08	46	0.08	8	0.45	45	0.19
Perlemuter 1992		30	0.74	20	0.01	33	0.09	29	0.28	10	0.46	28	0.36
Pierdomenico 2008		69	0.60	41	0.00	51	0.04	69	0.04	10	0.45	61	0.13
Poblocka 1999		28	0.74	56	0.00	20	0.10	14	0.41	13	0.48	20	0.44
Rabcewiczowa 1932		40	0.72	22	0.01	34	0.06	41	0.15	8	0.42	40	0.25
Rachmaninoff 1923		22	0.77	13	0.01	28	0.07	23	0.32	12	0.38	29	0.35
Rangell 2001		72	0.57	24	0.01	64	0.04	71	0.04	4	0.51	59	0.14
Richter 1976		64	0.62	8	0.02	65	0.05	61	0.05	26	0.43	53	0.15
Rosen 1989		20	0.77	80	0.00	26	0.06	27	0.31	15	0.43	27	0.37
Rosenthal 1930		74	0.56	60	0.00	77	0.04	74	0.04	28	0.18	72	0.08
Rosenthal 1931		76	0.54	32	0.00	79	0.03	82	0.03	32	0.21	71	0.08
Rosenthal 1931b		75	0.54	72	0.00	80	0.05	64	0.05	32	0.18	70	0.09
Rosenthal 1931c		79	0.50	61	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	46	0.05	81	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		77	0.52	58	0.00	81	0.03	80	0.03	45	0.09	79	0.05
Rossi 2007		78	0.52	59	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	51	0.06	84	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		73	0.56	34	0.00	76	0.03	81	0.03	68	0.04	86	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		87	0.41	38	0.00	85	0.03	85	0.03	60	0.05	82	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		70	0.59	81	0.00	75	0.03	83	0.03	74	0.04	88	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		32	0.73	39	0.00	25	0.06	26	0.32	18	0.47	24	0.39
Shebanova 2002		2	0.86	2	0.14	2	0.37	2	0.62	5	0.60	2	0.61
Smith 1975		46	0.71	87	0.00	52	0.05	63	0.05	10	0.40	57	0.14
Sokolov 2002		53	0.69	4	0.03	47	0.06	54	0.06	10	0.39	51	0.15
Sztompka 1959		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Tomsic 1995		84	0.46	49	0.00	86	0.03	79	0.03	49	0.08	78	0.05
Uninsky 1932		23	0.77	71	0.00	16	0.09	20	0.40	7	0.52	18	0.46
Uninsky 1971		52	0.70	50	0.00	22	0.08	25	0.32	19	0.42	26	0.37
Wasowski 1980		26	0.75	68	0.00	23	0.08	22	0.33	7	0.48	23	0.40
Zak 1937		36	0.72	78	0.00	43	0.07	39	0.16	26	0.23	44	0.19
Zak 1951		50	0.71	88	0.00	45	0.07	44	0.13	30	0.21	48	0.17
Average		1	0.90	1	0.48	1	0.47	1	0.73	4	0.62	1	0.67
Random 1		91	-0.26	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	66	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.10	82	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	74	0.03	89	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.18	83	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	63	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).