Uninsky 1971

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		6	0.76	25	0.00	5	0.14	10	0.47	13	0.44	15	0.45
Anderszewski 2003		56	0.50	87	0.00	55	0.06	60	0.06	71	0.04	59	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		55	0.52	60	0.00	39	0.10	42	0.22	44	0.09	40	0.14
Bacha 2000		75	0.36	32	0.00	64	0.07	48	0.07	79	0.03	53	0.05
Badura 1965		27	0.68	3	0.03	7	0.12	11	0.46	1	0.62	6	0.53
Barbosa 1983		80	0.31	17	0.01	68	0.04	71	0.04	67	0.04	71	0.04
Biret 1990		66	0.43	74	0.00	62	0.07	51	0.07	75	0.03	63	0.05
Blet 2003		16	0.71	15	0.01	35	0.08	32	0.36	6	0.46	23	0.41
Block 1995		46	0.57	58	0.00	48	0.08	47	0.08	41	0.11	47	0.09
Blumental 1952		67	0.43	68	0.00	53	0.04	66	0.04	56	0.05	74	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		4	0.77	5	0.02	11	0.08	8	0.47	15	0.53	10	0.50
Brailowsky 1960		73	0.37	42	0.00	75	0.04	80	0.04	79	0.03	77	0.03
Bunin 1987		30	0.65	75	0.00	31	0.08	31	0.37	6	0.51	21	0.43
Bunin 1987b		31	0.64	65	0.00	30	0.08	30	0.37	6	0.52	16	0.44
Chiu 1999		68	0.42	8	0.01	61	0.06	58	0.06	55	0.04	55	0.05
Cohen 1997		88	0.11	76	0.00	76	0.03	82	0.03	80	0.03	84	0.03
Cortot 1951		23	0.69	80	0.00	37	0.07	37	0.32	13	0.46	30	0.38
Csalog 1996		60	0.49	41	0.00	56	0.04	76	0.04	41	0.12	49	0.07
Czerny 1949		5	0.77	53	0.00	4	0.23	3	0.52	7	0.55	5	0.53
Czerny 1990		39	0.60	9	0.01	45	0.06	45	0.12	76	0.03	51	0.06
Duchoud 2007		58	0.50	47	0.00	52	0.06	56	0.06	40	0.13	46	0.09
Ezaki 2006		47	0.57	69	0.00	50	0.07	50	0.07	73	0.03	52	0.05
Falvay 1989		87	0.20	77	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	82	0.02	90	0.02
Farrell 1958		77	0.34	83	0.00	72	0.04	72	0.04	87	0.03	80	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		18	0.70	44	0.00	32	0.09	18	0.43	3	0.54	12	0.48
Fliere 1977		10	0.74	31	0.00	12	0.08	22	0.42	22	0.36	27	0.39
Fou 1978		50	0.55	72	0.00	43	0.08	43	0.18	38	0.13	38	0.15
Francois 1956		62	0.49	88	0.00	65	0.06	53	0.06	63	0.04	64	0.05
Friedman 1923		33	0.64	10	0.01	16	0.09	12	0.46	7	0.59	8	0.52
Friedman 1923b		35	0.63	6	0.01	15	0.09	7	0.47	7	0.59	7	0.53
Friedman 1930		34	0.64	55	0.00	34	0.09	35	0.33	16	0.49	26	0.40
Garcia 2007		29	0.66	84	0.00	38	0.08	38	0.28	30	0.25	37	0.26
Garcia 2007b		17	0.71	70	0.00	22	0.16	26	0.40	14	0.48	20	0.44
Gierzod 1998		13	0.72	12	0.01	20	0.11	20	0.42	17	0.41	25	0.41
Gornostaeva 1994		57	0.50	49	0.00	66	0.06	54	0.06	79	0.03	75	0.04
Groot 1988		71	0.39	39	0.00	71	0.03	81	0.03	77	0.04	87	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		24	0.69	29	0.00	17	0.10	6	0.47	14	0.42	19	0.44
Hatto 1993		42	0.60	28	0.00	10	0.07	24	0.42	10	0.51	13	0.46
Hatto 1997		38	0.61	54	0.00	9	0.07	23	0.42	12	0.46	17	0.44
Horowitz 1949		15	0.72	13	0.01	25	0.10	16	0.43	6	0.54	11	0.48
Indjic 1988		37	0.61	16	0.01	8	0.08	17	0.43	12	0.48	14	0.45
Kapell 1951		8	0.75	27	0.00	19	0.09	9	0.47	14	0.31	28	0.38
Kissin 1993		12	0.74	20	0.00	24	0.10	25	0.40	23	0.37	29	0.38
Kushner 1989		44	0.59	61	0.00	54	0.04	68	0.04	62	0.05	69	0.04
Luisada 1991		43	0.59	18	0.00	42	0.07	41	0.22	53	0.06	43	0.11
Lushtak 2004		64	0.46	64	0.00	59	0.04	67	0.04	62	0.04	73	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		49	0.55	14	0.01	47	0.06	61	0.06	26	0.24	42	0.12
Magaloff 1978		78	0.34	43	0.00	81	0.05	63	0.05	71	0.04	66	0.04
Magin 1975		25	0.68	56	0.00	41	0.09	40	0.26	52	0.05	44	0.11
Michalowski 1933		9	0.75	2	0.03	6	0.14	5	0.49	3	0.61	3	0.55
Milkina 1970		45	0.57	4	0.02	51	0.07	49	0.07	82	0.03	58	0.05
Mohovich 1999		52	0.53	23	0.00	60	0.06	57	0.06	70	0.04	62	0.05
Moravec 1969		69	0.41	45	0.00	78	0.04	79	0.04	52	0.05	65	0.04
Morozova 2008		32	0.64	66	0.00	40	0.07	39	0.26	44	0.09	39	0.15
Neighaus 1950		28	0.67	40	0.00	13	0.09	14	0.44	18	0.45	18	0.44
Niedzielski 1931		19	0.70	62	0.00	36	0.09	36	0.32	25	0.40	32	0.36
Ohlsson 1999		48	0.56	30	0.00	28	0.08	33	0.34	33	0.24	33	0.29
Osinska 1989		40	0.60	81	0.00	49	0.06	59	0.06	54	0.05	54	0.05
Pachmann 1927		54	0.53	36	0.00	67	0.05	62	0.05	55	0.04	70	0.04
Paderewski 1930		51	0.54	89	0.00	57	0.04	77	0.04	44	0.09	50	0.06
Perlemuter 1992		41	0.60	63	0.00	33	0.10	34	0.33	29	0.24	34	0.28
Pierdomenico 2008		79	0.34	71	0.00	79	0.04	78	0.04	82	0.03	79	0.03
Poblocka 1999		2	0.85	37	0.00	2	0.21	4	0.49	9	0.54	9	0.51
Rabcewiczowa 1932		53	0.53	51	0.00	58	0.05	64	0.05	47	0.06	57	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		61	0.49	19	0.00	63	0.09	46	0.09	78	0.03	56	0.05
Rangell 2001		74	0.37	50	0.00	74	0.04	75	0.04	79	0.03	85	0.03
Richter 1976		7	0.75	7	0.01	23	0.13	13	0.45	3	0.62	4	0.53
Rosen 1989		36	0.62	82	0.00	46	0.07	52	0.07	65	0.04	61	0.05
Rosenthal 1930		63	0.48	90	0.00	70	0.04	70	0.04	65	0.04	72	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		82	0.31	33	0.00	85	0.03	85	0.03	80	0.03	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.30	86	0.00	86	0.03	87	0.03	84	0.03	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		76	0.34	91	0.00	84	0.04	73	0.04	86	0.03	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		85	0.28	52	0.00	87	0.03	86	0.03	80	0.03	86	0.03
Rossi 2007		86	0.23	73	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	76	0.04	78	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		70	0.39	46	0.00	73	0.05	65	0.05	82	0.03	68	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		83	0.30	85	0.00	80	0.04	69	0.04	79	0.04	76	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		81	0.31	78	0.00	77	0.04	74	0.04	88	0.03	83	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		3	0.80	24	0.00	3	0.22	2	0.53	5	0.59	2	0.56
Shebanova 2002		11	0.74	35	0.00	14	0.10	15	0.44	14	0.39	24	0.41
Smith 1975		59	0.49	11	0.01	69	0.06	55	0.06	83	0.03	67	0.04
Sokolov 2002		65	0.44	34	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.12	46	0.06	48	0.08
Sztompka 1959		20	0.70	26	0.00	18	0.10	19	0.42	25	0.32	31	0.37
Tomsic 1995		72	0.38	48	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	81	0.03	81	0.03
Uninsky 1932		1	0.91	1	0.70	1	0.70	1	0.81	1	0.86	1	0.83
Uninsky 1971		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Wasowski 1980		22	0.69	21	0.00	26	0.07	28	0.38	8	0.44	22	0.41
Zak 1937		21	0.69	59	0.00	27	0.09	27	0.38	32	0.19	35	0.27
Zak 1951		26	0.68	57	0.00	29	0.09	29	0.38	35	0.18	36	0.26
Average		14	0.72	22	0.00	21	0.10	21	0.42	59	0.04	41	0.13
Random 1		89	-0.07	38	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	10	0.46	45	0.10
Random 2		91	-0.16	67	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	21	0.25	60	0.05
Random 3		90	-0.16	79	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	49	0.05	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).