Block 1995

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		76	0.24	61	0.00	66	0.05	56	0.05	69	0.04	74	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		5	0.56	8	0.01	6	0.17	5	0.68	26	0.45	6	0.55
Ashkenazy 1981		71	0.27	68	0.00	77	0.04	73	0.04	60	0.03	82	0.03
Bacha 2000		68	0.28	36	0.00	65	0.05	61	0.05	75	0.03	66	0.04
Badura 1965		54	0.33	23	0.00	63	0.06	48	0.06	54	0.06	59	0.06
Barbosa 1983		7	0.52	9	0.01	8	0.18	8	0.62	28	0.35	11	0.47
Biret 1990		15	0.47	38	0.00	23	0.10	21	0.44	46	0.06	34	0.16
Blet 2003		58	0.32	14	0.01	54	0.05	52	0.05	40	0.14	50	0.08
Block 1995		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Blumental 1952		13	0.49	12	0.01	7	0.18	11	0.54	24	0.47	10	0.50
Boshniakovich 1969		73	0.26	69	0.00	67	0.04	79	0.04	77	0.03	81	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		4	0.56	5	0.02	3	0.23	7	0.65	11	0.62	3	0.63
Bunin 1987		63	0.30	53	0.00	69	0.04	71	0.04	65	0.04	76	0.04
Bunin 1987b		69	0.28	42	0.00	74	0.03	81	0.03	69	0.04	79	0.03
Chiu 1999		43	0.37	32	0.00	38	0.06	40	0.15	24	0.30	27	0.21
Cohen 1997		81	0.18	70	0.00	83	0.04	64	0.04	73	0.03	83	0.03
Cortot 1951		65	0.29	19	0.00	19	0.10	36	0.20	41	0.21	28	0.20
Csalog 1996		30	0.42	37	0.00	14	0.11	22	0.43	23	0.34	18	0.38
Czerny 1949		60	0.32	81	0.00	64	0.06	50	0.06	71	0.04	65	0.05
Czerny 1990		11	0.49	40	0.00	21	0.13	9	0.56	46	0.09	26	0.22
Duchoud 2007		83	0.15	71	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	49	0.06	75	0.04
Ezaki 2006		3	0.59	3	0.10	4	0.25	4	0.71	24	0.47	5	0.58
Falvay 1989		2	0.62	1	0.38	1	0.37	1	0.83	3	0.73	1	0.78
Farrell 1958		51	0.35	62	0.00	56	0.05	57	0.05	50	0.06	61	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		22	0.44	10	0.01	13	0.11	15	0.49	13	0.57	9	0.53
Fliere 1977		16	0.46	16	0.00	17	0.10	18	0.46	49	0.06	29	0.17
Fou 1978		8	0.51	13	0.01	9	0.19	6	0.66	16	0.44	7	0.54
Francois 1956		84	0.14	66	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	73	0.03	84	0.03
Friedman 1923		57	0.32	82	0.00	53	0.05	51	0.05	30	0.30	44	0.12
Friedman 1923b		56	0.33	67	0.00	51	0.07	46	0.07	25	0.38	33	0.16
Friedman 1930		75	0.24	83	0.00	76	0.04	69	0.04	58	0.05	73	0.04
Garcia 2007		77	0.24	76	0.00	75	0.03	82	0.03	43	0.11	58	0.06
Garcia 2007b		78	0.20	63	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	85	0.02	88	0.02
Gierzod 1998		39	0.38	43	0.00	32	0.07	30	0.28	59	0.05	40	0.12
Gornostaeva 1994		27	0.42	26	0.00	26	0.08	24	0.38	33	0.27	21	0.32
Groot 1988		45	0.36	24	0.00	42	0.06	43	0.14	51	0.06	48	0.09
Harasiewicz 1955		17	0.46	11	0.01	27	0.07	25	0.35	64	0.05	37	0.13
Hatto 1993		35	0.39	31	0.00	41	0.06	38	0.17	72	0.04	51	0.08
Hatto 1997		41	0.38	20	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.07	71	0.04	64	0.05
Horowitz 1949		74	0.25	54	0.00	71	0.04	76	0.04	39	0.14	53	0.07
Indjic 1988		37	0.39	47	0.00	44	0.07	42	0.14	76	0.04	54	0.07
Kapell 1951		12	0.49	6	0.02	10	0.20	16	0.49	29	0.41	12	0.45
Kissin 1993		20	0.45	52	0.00	34	0.09	27	0.33	36	0.35	20	0.34
Kushner 1989		40	0.38	30	0.00	43	0.06	41	0.15	63	0.05	47	0.09
Luisada 1991		44	0.36	77	0.00	62	0.05	59	0.05	60	0.04	67	0.04
Lushtak 2004		9	0.49	78	0.00	22	0.13	12	0.51	42	0.18	23	0.30
Malcuzynski 1961		33	0.41	55	0.00	28	0.06	29	0.31	58	0.05	39	0.12
Magaloff 1978		34	0.39	33	0.00	57	0.04	66	0.04	76	0.03	78	0.03
Magin 1975		53	0.34	18	0.00	47	0.05	53	0.05	84	0.03	70	0.04
Michalowski 1933		86	0.05	84	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	84	0.02	86	0.02
Milkina 1970		38	0.38	85	0.00	50	0.06	49	0.06	75	0.04	62	0.05
Mohovich 1999		6	0.55	22	0.00	5	0.26	3	0.72	13	0.56	4	0.63
Moravec 1969		14	0.49	28	0.00	15	0.10	17	0.48	23	0.40	13	0.44
Morozova 2008		61	0.31	74	0.00	68	0.04	78	0.04	72	0.04	72	0.04
Neighaus 1950		70	0.27	7	0.02	48	0.05	58	0.05	32	0.23	45	0.11
Niedzielski 1931		59	0.32	56	0.00	46	0.07	47	0.07	14	0.41	30	0.17
Ohlsson 1999		64	0.30	58	0.00	52	0.05	60	0.05	53	0.05	63	0.05
Osinska 1989		32	0.41	41	0.00	35	0.08	33	0.26	60	0.06	38	0.12
Pachmann 1927		82	0.17	59	0.00	82	0.04	70	0.04	56	0.05	71	0.04
Paderewski 1930		89	-0.07	86	0.00	88	0.01	88	0.01	87	0.02	89	0.01
Perlemuter 1992		80	0.18	48	0.00	80	0.04	72	0.04	56	0.05	68	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		85	0.07	79	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	86	0.02	85	0.02
Poblocka 1999		1	0.64	2	0.33	2	0.46	2	0.79	3	0.72	2	0.75
Rabcewiczowa 1932		31	0.41	4	0.04	12	0.12	14	0.50	25	0.32	16	0.40
Rachmaninoff 1923		10	0.49	64	0.00	18	0.12	10	0.55	10	0.52	8	0.53
Rangell 2001		46	0.36	50	0.00	55	0.05	54	0.05	46	0.08	60	0.06
Richter 1976		26	0.42	65	0.00	40	0.08	39	0.15	43	0.14	35	0.14
Rosen 1989		49	0.36	29	0.00	30	0.07	34	0.26	37	0.25	25	0.25
Rosenthal 1930		52	0.34	75	0.00	60	0.04	62	0.04	28	0.38	41	0.12
Rosenthal 1931		36	0.39	15	0.01	29	0.07	31	0.27	9	0.53	17	0.38
Rosenthal 1931b		72	0.27	27	0.00	73	0.04	65	0.04	44	0.13	56	0.07
Rosenthal 1931c		47	0.36	44	0.00	49	0.05	55	0.05	40	0.17	49	0.09
Rosenthal 1931d		62	0.31	57	0.00	61	0.04	63	0.04	26	0.35	43	0.12
Rossi 2007		79	0.19	72	0.00	78	0.04	77	0.04	43	0.10	57	0.06
Rubinstein 1939		50	0.35	39	0.00	37	0.06	44	0.13	66	0.04	52	0.07
Rubinstein 1952		21	0.45	51	0.00	20	0.11	13	0.50	50	0.06	32	0.17
Rubinstein 1966		19	0.45	35	0.00	25	0.09	23	0.40	49	0.07	31	0.17
Schilhawsky 1960		67	0.29	73	0.00	72	0.04	75	0.04	80	0.03	80	0.03
Shebanova 2002		24	0.43	49	0.00	11	0.12	20	0.45	21	0.41	14	0.43
Smith 1975		48	0.36	87	0.00	59	0.04	74	0.04	59	0.05	69	0.04
Sokolov 2002		66	0.29	34	0.00	70	0.04	67	0.04	71	0.03	77	0.03
Sztompka 1959		42	0.37	45	0.00	31	0.08	32	0.26	34	0.31	24	0.28
Tomsic 1995		28	0.42	25	0.00	16	0.10	28	0.33	21	0.38	19	0.35
Uninsky 1932		55	0.33	21	0.00	58	0.04	68	0.04	43	0.11	55	0.07
Uninsky 1971		29	0.42	17	0.00	36	0.08	35	0.23	48	0.07	36	0.13
Wasowski 1980		25	0.43	60	0.00	24	0.10	19	0.46	32	0.34	15	0.40
Zak 1937		18	0.45	88	0.00	33	0.07	26	0.34	34	0.29	22	0.31
Zak 1951		23	0.43	89	0.00	39	0.08	37	0.20	55	0.05	46	0.10
Random 1		87	0.03	46	0.00	85	0.03	83	0.03	4	0.52	42	0.12
Random 2		88	0.01	80	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	60	0.03	87	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.11	90	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	85	0.02	90	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).