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		64	0.33	24	0.00	67	0.04	70	0.04	53	0.05	73	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		23	0.48	7	0.04	7	0.17	15	0.59	22	0.49	12	0.54
Ashkenazy 1981		38	0.41	19	0.01	48	0.05	49	0.05	34	0.21	44	0.10
Bacha 2000		65	0.33	74	0.00	66	0.04	63	0.04	41	0.18	48	0.08
Badura 1965		77	0.29	53	0.00	72	0.05	55	0.05	61	0.05	64	0.05
Barbosa 1983		18	0.49	82	0.00	21	0.18	21	0.53	36	0.22	25	0.34
Biret 1990		53	0.37	28	0.00	35	0.07	36	0.28	60	0.05	41	0.12
Blet 2003		67	0.33	71	0.00	70	0.05	59	0.05	59	0.05	62	0.05
Block 1995		51	0.37	75	0.00	36	0.09	34	0.31	32	0.26	31	0.28
Blumental 1952		45	0.39	17	0.01	37	0.08	39	0.22	59	0.06	42	0.11
Boshniakovich 1969		22	0.48	63	0.00	20	0.14	19	0.55	35	0.22	24	0.35
Brailowsky 1960		46	0.39	60	0.00	41	0.09	37	0.23	37	0.25	33	0.24
Bunin 1987		73	0.30	72	0.00	80	0.03	82	0.03	84	0.03	83	0.03
Bunin 1987b		78	0.27	52	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	72	0.04	79	0.03
Chiu 1999		58	0.36	46	0.00	57	0.04	73	0.04	58	0.05	67	0.04
Cohen 1997		76	0.29	76	0.00	76	0.04	75	0.04	66	0.04	76	0.04
Cortot 1951		30	0.43	20	0.01	17	0.12	23	0.47	5	0.67	10	0.56
Csalog 1996		80	0.25	77	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	68	0.04	80	0.03
Czerny 1949		1	0.64	2	0.11	2	0.17	2	0.78	9	0.70	2	0.74
Czerny 1990		2	0.63	1	0.34	1	0.33	1	0.79	13	0.69	3	0.74
Duchoud 2007		85	0.21	88	0.00	85	0.03	85	0.03	71	0.03	81	0.03
Ezaki 2006		33	0.43	83	0.00	46	0.07	45	0.07	54	0.06	56	0.06
Falvay 1989		34	0.43	78	0.00	51	0.04	64	0.04	61	0.04	69	0.04
Farrell 1958		20	0.49	23	0.00	19	0.16	12	0.63	14	0.56	7	0.59
Ferenczy 1958		62	0.34	84	0.00	74	0.05	48	0.05	45	0.09	55	0.07
Fliere 1977		26	0.45	68	0.00	30	0.09	27	0.43	62	0.05	37	0.15
Fou 1978		19	0.49	26	0.00	13	0.14	16	0.57	15	0.45	14	0.51
Francois 1956		43	0.40	36	0.00	43	0.05	42	0.11	25	0.30	35	0.18
Friedman 1923		71	0.32	48	0.00	61	0.04	68	0.04	60	0.05	77	0.04
Friedman 1923b		69	0.32	14	0.01	56	0.05	54	0.05	40	0.18	47	0.09
Friedman 1930		72	0.31	61	0.00	62	0.05	53	0.05	53	0.06	63	0.05
Garcia 2007		70	0.32	79	0.00	65	0.04	65	0.04	40	0.17	52	0.08
Garcia 2007b		60	0.34	35	0.00	55	0.05	56	0.05	58	0.05	65	0.05
Gierzod 1998		6	0.57	21	0.01	10	0.15	14	0.59	34	0.33	18	0.44
Gornostaeva 1994		41	0.40	32	0.00	59	0.04	66	0.04	73	0.03	84	0.03
Groot 1988		81	0.25	54	0.00	69	0.04	72	0.04	80	0.03	86	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		5	0.59	4	0.08	4	0.21	11	0.63	23	0.54	8	0.58
Hatto 1993		48	0.38	34	0.00	22	0.11	28	0.41	40	0.19	32	0.28
Hatto 1997		54	0.37	30	0.00	26	0.10	31	0.37	42	0.10	34	0.19
Horowitz 1949		68	0.32	64	0.00	75	0.05	61	0.05	41	0.14	50	0.08
Indjic 1988		49	0.38	10	0.02	23	0.14	29	0.41	38	0.20	29	0.29
Kapell 1951		21	0.49	39	0.00	24	0.10	20	0.53	39	0.20	26	0.33
Kissin 1993		3	0.61	9	0.02	3	0.20	3	0.76	3	0.77	1	0.76
Kushner 1989		7	0.56	15	0.01	8	0.17	4	0.70	29	0.36	15	0.50
Luisada 1991		56	0.36	47	0.00	71	0.05	62	0.05	57	0.05	58	0.05
Lushtak 2004		29	0.44	44	0.00	31	0.08	32	0.36	46	0.06	38	0.15
Malcuzynski 1961		15	0.53	13	0.01	18	0.12	18	0.56	36	0.29	20	0.40
Magaloff 1978		37	0.41	43	0.00	39	0.07	40	0.21	50	0.07	40	0.12
Magin 1975		40	0.41	11	0.02	47	0.04	74	0.04	80	0.03	78	0.03
Michalowski 1933		84	0.22	55	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	43	0.09	61	0.05
Milkina 1970		8	0.55	31	0.00	11	0.17	13	0.62	33	0.32	16	0.45
Mohovich 1999		55	0.37	50	0.00	49	0.04	69	0.04	83	0.03	82	0.03
Moravec 1969		52	0.37	81	0.00	64	0.05	50	0.05	71	0.04	66	0.04
Morozova 2008		17	0.50	25	0.00	27	0.09	25	0.47	31	0.27	23	0.36
Neighaus 1950		12	0.54	12	0.02	16	0.14	6	0.68	1	0.73	4	0.70
Niedzielski 1931		61	0.34	42	0.00	60	0.05	47	0.05	36	0.14	49	0.08
Ohlsson 1999		28	0.45	18	0.01	32	0.09	33	0.34	36	0.26	28	0.30
Osinska 1989		25	0.47	80	0.00	25	0.10	24	0.47	53	0.06	36	0.17
Pachmann 1927		82	0.25	56	0.00	84	0.02	86	0.02	63	0.03	89	0.02
Paderewski 1930		63	0.34	51	0.00	38	0.06	41	0.20	8	0.53	27	0.33
Perlemuter 1992		39	0.41	62	0.00	54	0.05	57	0.05	31	0.27	39	0.12
Pierdomenico 2008		66	0.33	85	0.00	73	0.04	67	0.04	59	0.05	70	0.04
Poblocka 1999		14	0.53	8	0.03	9	0.15	8	0.66	20	0.47	9	0.56
Rabcewiczowa 1932		42	0.40	57	0.00	40	0.08	38	0.22	66	0.04	46	0.09
Rachmaninoff 1923		75	0.30	38	0.00	68	0.04	78	0.04	54	0.05	68	0.04
Rangell 2001		16	0.51	65	0.00	28	0.11	26	0.44	21	0.44	19	0.44
Richter 1976		4	0.60	3	0.09	5	0.25	7	0.66	10	0.63	5	0.64
Rosen 1989		36	0.42	45	0.00	50	0.05	60	0.05	60	0.04	75	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		74	0.30	58	0.00	77	0.04	76	0.04	54	0.05	74	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		83	0.24	66	0.00	83	0.04	77	0.04	52	0.05	72	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		86	0.19	69	0.00	86	0.03	79	0.03	65	0.04	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		79	0.26	89	0.00	78	0.02	87	0.02	73	0.04	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		87	0.18	86	0.00	87	0.03	83	0.03	72	0.04	85	0.03
Rossi 2007		59	0.35	59	0.00	58	0.04	71	0.04	41	0.11	54	0.07
Rubinstein 1939		24	0.47	70	0.00	29	0.13	22	0.48	31	0.32	21	0.39
Rubinstein 1952		10	0.55	5	0.06	15	0.13	9	0.64	33	0.31	17	0.45
Rubinstein 1966		9	0.55	16	0.01	12	0.18	5	0.69	34	0.39	13	0.52
Schilhawsky 1960		27	0.45	33	0.00	33	0.11	30	0.38	40	0.21	30	0.28
Shebanova 2002		32	0.43	67	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.11	51	0.06	51	0.08
Smith 1975		50	0.38	41	0.00	42	0.05	44	0.10	47	0.08	45	0.09
Sokolov 2002		47	0.39	29	0.00	52	0.05	58	0.05	47	0.06	59	0.05
Sztompka 1959		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Tomsic 1995		57	0.36	49	0.00	63	0.05	52	0.05	69	0.05	60	0.05
Uninsky 1932		31	0.43	40	0.00	34	0.09	35	0.30	25	0.49	22	0.38
Uninsky 1971		13	0.54	37	0.00	14	0.16	10	0.63	10	0.59	6	0.61
Wasowski 1980		11	0.55	6	0.04	6	0.13	17	0.57	10	0.54	11	0.55
Zak 1937		35	0.42	27	0.00	45	0.06	46	0.06	48	0.06	57	0.06
Zak 1951		44	0.39	22	0.01	53	0.05	51	0.05	85	0.03	71	0.04
Random 1		89	0.00	90	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	22	0.32	53	0.08
Random 2		88	0.01	87	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	73	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		90	0.00	73	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	7	0.46	43	0.10

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).