Cortot 1951

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		65	0.21	59	0.00	66	0.04	63	0.04	85	0.03	69	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		22	0.34	28	0.00	27	0.08	22	0.44	60	0.06	21	0.16
Ashkenazy 1981		63	0.21	25	0.00	77	0.03	70	0.03	52	0.04	70	0.03
Bacha 2000		16	0.36	20	0.01	21	0.13	20	0.45	29	0.30	8	0.37
Badura 1965		78	0.15	44	0.00	82	0.02	84	0.02	82	0.03	85	0.02
Barbosa 1983		9	0.40	8	0.05	13	0.11	23	0.41	41	0.17	15	0.26
Biret 1990		18	0.35	23	0.00	26	0.06	28	0.34	74	0.03	43	0.10
Blet 2003		69	0.18	67	0.00	83	0.02	82	0.02	85	0.02	83	0.02
Block 1995		40	0.29	37	0.00	43	0.08	41	0.21	36	0.20	18	0.20
Blumental 1952		11	0.39	6	0.05	12	0.10	8	0.62	40	0.17	13	0.32
Boshniakovich 1969		46	0.27	57	0.00	37	0.08	39	0.23	70	0.04	42	0.10
Brailowsky 1960		34	0.31	76	0.00	44	0.11	43	0.21	46	0.07	30	0.12
Bunin 1987		64	0.21	81	0.00	69	0.03	73	0.03	86	0.03	71	0.03
Bunin 1987b		73	0.17	69	0.00	74	0.02	79	0.02	84	0.03	80	0.02
Chiu 1999		74	0.17	52	0.00	70	0.03	72	0.03	87	0.02	77	0.02
Cohen 1997		36	0.30	31	0.00	31	0.07	29	0.33	52	0.05	28	0.13
Cortot 1951		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Csalog 1996		77	0.15	82	0.00	72	0.03	75	0.03	84	0.02	82	0.02
Czerny 1949		1	0.48	1	0.23	1	0.23	1	0.76	32	0.44	1	0.58
Czerny 1990		15	0.37	29	0.00	20	0.15	13	0.51	67	0.04	26	0.14
Duchoud 2007		86	0.09	32	0.00	58	0.03	64	0.03	82	0.02	84	0.02
Ezaki 2006		23	0.34	53	0.00	41	0.07	37	0.25	64	0.05	34	0.11
Falvay 1989		54	0.23	72	0.00	64	0.03	67	0.03	87	0.02	78	0.02
Farrell 1958		5	0.44	7	0.05	7	0.22	4	0.69	37	0.25	6	0.42
Ferenczy 1958		51	0.24	70	0.00	61	0.05	60	0.05	80	0.03	59	0.04
Fliere 1977		29	0.32	55	0.00	33	0.09	31	0.32	84	0.03	37	0.10
Fou 1978		17	0.36	50	0.00	25	0.07	21	0.45	80	0.03	31	0.12
Francois 1956		47	0.27	77	0.00	52	0.07	47	0.07	55	0.05	53	0.06
Friedman 1923		83	0.12	83	0.00	85	0.02	83	0.02	81	0.04	74	0.03
Friedman 1923b		85	0.09	73	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	80	0.03	87	0.02
Friedman 1930		90	0.00	60	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	88	0.02	90	0.01
Garcia 2007		62	0.21	86	0.00	54	0.08	45	0.08	56	0.05	50	0.06
Garcia 2007b		55	0.22	78	0.00	45	0.06	54	0.06	66	0.05	58	0.05
Gierzod 1998		45	0.27	87	0.00	53	0.07	53	0.07	84	0.03	55	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		32	0.31	51	0.00	51	0.07	46	0.07	75	0.03	57	0.05
Groot 1988		41	0.29	38	0.00	30	0.06	32	0.31	81	0.03	44	0.10
Harasiewicz 1955		8	0.41	15	0.01	15	0.13	10	0.58	52	0.06	20	0.19
Hatto 1993		19	0.35	61	0.00	17	0.10	15	0.47	55	0.05	23	0.15
Hatto 1997		21	0.34	27	0.00	19	0.13	19	0.46	73	0.04	25	0.14
Horowitz 1949		82	0.13	48	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	77	0.03	81	0.02
Indjic 1988		20	0.35	58	0.00	18	0.10	16	0.47	69	0.04	24	0.14
Kapell 1951		31	0.32	12	0.02	11	0.11	14	0.50	40	0.20	12	0.32
Kissin 1993		43	0.29	18	0.01	24	0.07	42	0.21	57	0.05	39	0.10
Kushner 1989		38	0.29	21	0.01	36	0.08	38	0.24	71	0.04	38	0.10
Luisada 1991		66	0.21	13	0.01	56	0.06	55	0.06	77	0.04	54	0.05
Lushtak 2004		30	0.32	17	0.01	42	0.08	40	0.23	65	0.04	40	0.10
Malcuzynski 1961		2	0.47	9	0.04	4	0.21	2	0.73	39	0.23	7	0.41
Magaloff 1978		4	0.45	3	0.11	5	0.12	9	0.61	52	0.06	19	0.19
Magin 1975		61	0.21	65	0.00	75	0.03	68	0.03	75	0.04	62	0.03
Michalowski 1933		79	0.14	74	0.00	79	0.03	69	0.03	69	0.03	67	0.03
Milkina 1970		24	0.33	66	0.00	32	0.06	27	0.35	72	0.04	32	0.12
Mohovich 1999		56	0.22	54	0.00	49	0.06	56	0.06	64	0.04	56	0.05
Moravec 1969		53	0.23	71	0.00	65	0.03	66	0.03	89	0.02	75	0.02
Morozova 2008		42	0.29	22	0.01	47	0.07	51	0.07	60	0.05	49	0.06
Neighaus 1950		59	0.22	42	0.00	50	0.07	52	0.07	58	0.05	52	0.06
Niedzielski 1931		75	0.16	39	0.00	80	0.03	78	0.03	81	0.02	79	0.02
Ohlsson 1999		49	0.26	35	0.00	57	0.05	59	0.05	83	0.02	66	0.03
Osinska 1989		25	0.33	84	0.00	28	0.07	24	0.40	72	0.04	27	0.13
Pachmann 1927		87	0.08	68	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	81	0.02	89	0.01
Paderewski 1930		60	0.22	14	0.01	22	0.07	30	0.33	20	0.36	10	0.34
Perlemuter 1992		84	0.10	62	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	86	0.02	76	0.02
Pierdomenico 2008		71	0.18	24	0.00	46	0.07	48	0.07	54	0.05	48	0.06
Poblocka 1999		10	0.39	2	0.12	2	0.14	11	0.56	29	0.34	5	0.44
Rabcewiczowa 1932		37	0.30	26	0.00	29	0.07	25	0.38	80	0.03	35	0.11
Rachmaninoff 1923		13	0.39	5	0.05	16	0.11	17	0.46	40	0.13	16	0.24
Rangell 2001		7	0.43	40	0.00	8	0.12	6	0.65	28	0.36	4	0.48
Richter 1976		27	0.33	33	0.00	14	0.11	26	0.37	32	0.29	11	0.33
Rosen 1989		68	0.18	85	0.00	73	0.02	81	0.02	87	0.02	86	0.02
Rosenthal 1930		44	0.28	36	0.00	55	0.07	49	0.07	50	0.05	51	0.06
Rosenthal 1931		70	0.18	88	0.00	76	0.03	77	0.03	81	0.03	68	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		81	0.13	63	0.00	67	0.03	71	0.03	86	0.02	88	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		58	0.22	89	0.00	62	0.05	57	0.05	86	0.02	73	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		52	0.23	75	0.00	60	0.04	61	0.04	75	0.03	72	0.03
Rossi 2007		72	0.18	49	0.00	59	0.04	62	0.04	84	0.02	61	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		12	0.39	10	0.03	9	0.16	7	0.63	38	0.18	9	0.34
Rubinstein 1952		39	0.29	46	0.00	38	0.08	36	0.25	67	0.04	45	0.10
Rubinstein 1966		26	0.33	45	0.00	23	0.06	18	0.46	65	0.05	22	0.15
Schilhawsky 1960		3	0.45	11	0.03	6	0.16	3	0.72	30	0.37	3	0.52
Shebanova 2002		33	0.31	16	0.01	34	0.07	35	0.25	58	0.05	36	0.11
Smith 1975		48	0.27	64	0.00	48	0.07	50	0.07	60	0.05	47	0.06
Sokolov 2002		50	0.24	47	0.00	63	0.05	58	0.05	87	0.02	60	0.03
Sztompka 1959		6	0.43	4	0.08	3	0.18	5	0.67	23	0.47	2	0.56
Tomsic 1995		76	0.15	34	0.00	84	0.02	80	0.02	74	0.04	65	0.03
Uninsky 1932		35	0.31	43	0.00	35	0.10	33	0.30	72	0.03	46	0.09
Uninsky 1971		14	0.38	56	0.00	10	0.11	12	0.55	45	0.07	17	0.20
Wasowski 1980		28	0.32	30	0.00	40	0.07	34	0.26	57	0.06	29	0.12
Zak 1937		57	0.22	79	0.00	68	0.03	74	0.03	85	0.03	63	0.03
Zak 1951		67	0.21	80	0.00	71	0.03	65	0.03	86	0.03	64	0.03
Random 1		89	0.02	90	0.00	81	0.02	85	0.02	5	0.51	41	0.10
Random 2		80	0.13	41	0.00	78	0.03	76	0.03	6	0.47	33	0.12
Random 3		88	0.06	19	0.01	39	0.07	44	0.13	1	0.59	14	0.28

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).