Bacha 2000

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		59	0.33	33	0.00	59	0.03	85	0.03	78	0.03	78	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		12	0.43	26	0.00	10	0.09	6	0.56	43	0.15	8	0.29
Ashkenazy 1981		2	0.49	4	0.04	7	0.08	10	0.50	6	0.51	2	0.50
Bacha 2000		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Badura 1965		66	0.31	16	0.01	61	0.03	79	0.03	75	0.03	81	0.03
Barbosa 1983		27	0.38	65	0.00	39	0.06	37	0.24	65	0.05	39	0.11
Biret 1990		23	0.39	54	0.00	48	0.05	47	0.05	88	0.02	84	0.03
Blet 2003		30	0.37	9	0.02	22	0.07	33	0.26	24	0.25	10	0.25
Block 1995		73	0.28	47	0.00	75	0.03	76	0.03	62	0.05	65	0.04
Blumental 1952		9	0.44	42	0.00	17	0.09	11	0.49	64	0.05	24	0.16
Boshniakovich 1969		47	0.35	89	0.00	66	0.03	68	0.03	73	0.03	83	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		46	0.35	29	0.00	63	0.04	62	0.04	63	0.05	57	0.04
Bunin 1987		38	0.36	36	0.00	36	0.06	32	0.28	53	0.05	36	0.12
Bunin 1987b		35	0.36	24	0.01	33	0.06	24	0.33	38	0.17	11	0.24
Chiu 1999		75	0.28	17	0.01	71	0.04	61	0.04	53	0.06	50	0.05
Cohen 1997		45	0.35	67	0.00	27	0.06	20	0.39	12	0.35	4	0.37
Cortot 1951		39	0.36	13	0.01	34	0.06	30	0.30	21	0.45	5	0.37
Csalog 1996		61	0.32	31	0.00	49	0.05	50	0.05	74	0.04	63	0.04
Czerny 1949		22	0.39	90	0.00	31	0.08	19	0.40	49	0.07	22	0.17
Czerny 1990		42	0.35	11	0.01	20	0.07	31	0.29	82	0.03	40	0.09
Duchoud 2007		25	0.38	12	0.01	29	0.07	29	0.30	20	0.48	3	0.38
Ezaki 2006		3	0.49	7	0.02	4	0.13	2	0.62	49	0.06	16	0.19
Falvay 1989		36	0.36	58	0.00	67	0.03	81	0.03	64	0.04	70	0.03
Farrell 1958		6	0.45	2	0.21	2	0.30	4	0.59	22	0.45	1	0.52
Ferenczy 1958		84	0.24	91	0.00	84	0.02	87	0.02	79	0.03	88	0.02
Fliere 1977		17	0.41	21	0.01	6	0.11	18	0.41	42	0.13	12	0.23
Fou 1978		19	0.40	25	0.01	14	0.08	27	0.32	61	0.05	30	0.13
Francois 1956		64	0.31	14	0.01	19	0.07	26	0.32	41	0.16	13	0.23
Friedman 1923		82	0.25	53	0.00	58	0.03	74	0.03	66	0.05	66	0.04
Friedman 1923b		83	0.25	76	0.00	54	0.04	59	0.04	48	0.06	54	0.05
Friedman 1930		87	0.15	84	0.00	88	0.03	69	0.03	86	0.03	76	0.03
Garcia 2007		85	0.22	59	0.00	85	0.03	71	0.03	73	0.04	80	0.03
Garcia 2007b		79	0.27	82	0.00	53	0.03	66	0.03	71	0.04	85	0.03
Gierzod 1998		28	0.37	45	0.00	51	0.05	49	0.05	88	0.02	79	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		76	0.28	66	0.00	70	0.03	70	0.03	85	0.02	90	0.02
Groot 1988		14	0.42	23	0.01	18	0.12	14	0.46	45	0.10	14	0.21
Harasiewicz 1955		40	0.36	18	0.01	42	0.08	39	0.22	66	0.04	42	0.09
Hatto 1993		11	0.43	60	0.00	8	0.10	12	0.47	57	0.04	28	0.14
Hatto 1997		13	0.42	39	0.00	9	0.10	13	0.46	67	0.04	26	0.14
Horowitz 1949		70	0.29	69	0.00	79	0.04	58	0.04	49	0.06	52	0.05
Indjic 1988		15	0.41	85	0.00	16	0.08	15	0.43	59	0.04	31	0.13
Kapell 1951		31	0.37	55	0.00	37	0.06	34	0.25	65	0.05	38	0.11
Kissin 1993		55	0.33	38	0.00	77	0.04	57	0.04	72	0.04	61	0.04
Kushner 1989		18	0.40	35	0.00	24	0.07	23	0.33	71	0.04	37	0.11
Luisada 1991		74	0.28	40	0.00	57	0.03	67	0.03	77	0.04	67	0.03
Lushtak 2004		51	0.34	50	0.00	26	0.06	22	0.38	59	0.05	27	0.14
Malcuzynski 1961		5	0.45	28	0.00	13	0.11	9	0.51	70	0.04	25	0.14
Magaloff 1978		10	0.44	19	0.01	21	0.07	16	0.42	54	0.06	23	0.16
Magin 1975		78	0.27	86	0.00	83	0.03	65	0.03	82	0.03	71	0.03
Michalowski 1933		88	0.13	87	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	84	0.02	87	0.02
Milkina 1970		4	0.47	32	0.00	5	0.15	5	0.58	57	0.06	17	0.19
Mohovich 1999		56	0.33	43	0.00	38	0.06	43	0.17	76	0.04	45	0.08
Moravec 1969		43	0.35	44	0.00	62	0.03	83	0.03	64	0.05	55	0.04
Morozova 2008		34	0.36	80	0.00	35	0.06	28	0.31	64	0.05	34	0.12
Neighaus 1950		60	0.33	77	0.00	46	0.06	46	0.06	37	0.15	41	0.09
Niedzielski 1931		68	0.30	22	0.01	60	0.03	82	0.03	47	0.08	51	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		24	0.39	20	0.01	30	0.07	21	0.39	70	0.04	33	0.12
Osinska 1989		62	0.32	70	0.00	56	0.04	60	0.04	83	0.03	68	0.03
Pachmann 1927		81	0.25	56	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	72	0.03	75	0.03
Paderewski 1930		71	0.29	5	0.03	32	0.06	40	0.21	17	0.38	9	0.28
Perlemuter 1992		86	0.17	71	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	88	0.02	86	0.02
Pierdomenico 2008		50	0.35	72	0.00	74	0.03	73	0.03	53	0.05	60	0.04
Poblocka 1999		69	0.29	34	0.00	69	0.03	75	0.03	71	0.05	58	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		49	0.35	61	0.00	44	0.08	41	0.18	70	0.04	43	0.08
Rachmaninoff 1923		37	0.36	27	0.00	28	0.06	36	0.25	43	0.11	20	0.17
Rangell 2001		52	0.34	10	0.01	15	0.07	25	0.32	42	0.11	18	0.19
Richter 1976		33	0.37	57	0.00	50	0.04	52	0.04	78	0.03	74	0.03
Rosen 1989		44	0.35	88	0.00	64	0.04	55	0.04	83	0.03	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		58	0.33	62	0.00	55	0.04	56	0.04	49	0.06	53	0.05
Rosenthal 1931		77	0.28	74	0.00	81	0.03	63	0.03	54	0.05	62	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		54	0.33	48	0.00	65	0.03	64	0.03	37	0.21	46	0.08
Rosenthal 1931c		29	0.37	8	0.02	23	0.08	44	0.15	33	0.22	19	0.18
Rosenthal 1931d		72	0.29	78	0.00	80	0.04	53	0.04	43	0.13	47	0.07
Rossi 2007		63	0.32	68	0.00	72	0.03	80	0.03	67	0.04	69	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		7	0.44	15	0.01	11	0.09	7	0.54	40	0.18	6	0.31
Rubinstein 1952		16	0.41	73	0.00	25	0.06	17	0.41	56	0.05	29	0.14
Rubinstein 1966		8	0.44	3	0.04	3	0.15	3	0.60	52	0.07	15	0.20
Schilhawsky 1960		26	0.38	49	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.14	74	0.03	49	0.06
Shebanova 2002		65	0.31	83	0.00	76	0.03	78	0.03	86	0.03	77	0.03
Smith 1975		53	0.33	63	0.00	52	0.04	51	0.04	75	0.04	59	0.04
Sokolov 2002		21	0.39	30	0.00	41	0.06	35	0.25	53	0.06	32	0.12
Sztompka 1959		57	0.33	81	0.00	43	0.07	42	0.18	64	0.04	44	0.08
Tomsic 1995		32	0.37	37	0.00	47	0.05	48	0.05	52	0.07	48	0.06
Uninsky 1932		67	0.30	46	0.00	40	0.06	38	0.23	51	0.06	35	0.12
Uninsky 1971		20	0.39	6	0.02	12	0.12	8	0.51	42	0.17	7	0.29
Wasowski 1980		80	0.25	79	0.00	78	0.04	54	0.04	77	0.05	56	0.04
Zak 1937		48	0.35	75	0.00	73	0.03	77	0.03	87	0.03	72	0.03
Zak 1951		41	0.36	41	0.00	68	0.03	72	0.03	72	0.04	73	0.03
Average		1	0.55	1	0.43	1	0.43	1	0.76	73	0.04	21	0.17
Random 1		91	-0.16	64	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	87	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	-0.05	52	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	44	0.08	64	0.04
Random 3		90	-0.11	51	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	55	0.04	89	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).