Blet 2003

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		28	0.40	52	0.00	51	0.05	56	0.05	37	0.18	43	0.09
Anderszewski 2003		36	0.39	78	0.00	54	0.07	46	0.07	65	0.05	51	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		19	0.41	74	0.00	47	0.06	51	0.06	24	0.29	31	0.13
Bacha 2000		48	0.37	42	0.00	22	0.06	24	0.25	33	0.26	13	0.25
Badura 1965		22	0.41	23	0.01	29	0.06	30	0.22	38	0.14	21	0.18
Barbosa 1983		37	0.39	41	0.00	64	0.03	72	0.03	81	0.03	75	0.03
Biret 1990		13	0.43	68	0.00	10	0.07	10	0.45	51	0.06	26	0.16
Blet 2003		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Block 1995		67	0.32	29	0.00	27	0.06	41	0.14	53	0.05	48	0.08
Blumental 1952		38	0.38	37	0.00	24	0.09	19	0.30	44	0.12	20	0.19
Boshniakovich 1969		4	0.48	13	0.01	5	0.15	4	0.53	62	0.05	25	0.16
Brailowsky 1960		25	0.40	51	0.00	40	0.06	37	0.16	52	0.06	37	0.10
Bunin 1987		53	0.36	44	0.00	35	0.06	25	0.25	36	0.16	19	0.20
Bunin 1987b		49	0.37	45	0.00	36	0.06	21	0.26	33	0.23	14	0.24
Chiu 1999		79	0.26	73	0.00	79	0.02	87	0.02	83	0.02	84	0.02
Cohen 1997		72	0.30	61	0.00	34	0.04	32	0.20	24	0.22	18	0.21
Cortot 1951		86	0.18	69	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	83	0.02	89	0.02
Csalog 1996		6	0.45	3	0.06	4	0.23	5	0.51	18	0.39	3	0.45
Czerny 1949		69	0.31	75	0.00	67	0.03	77	0.03	75	0.03	80	0.03
Czerny 1990		57	0.35	76	0.00	62	0.04	62	0.04	85	0.03	82	0.03
Duchoud 2007		84	0.22	82	0.00	82	0.03	82	0.03	64	0.05	64	0.04
Ezaki 2006		15	0.42	77	0.00	41	0.06	39	0.15	73	0.04	45	0.08
Falvay 1989		23	0.41	53	0.00	31	0.06	44	0.13	85	0.03	49	0.06
Farrell 1958		87	0.18	84	0.00	87	0.03	79	0.03	86	0.02	86	0.02
Ferenczy 1958		52	0.37	7	0.02	23	0.06	33	0.19	36	0.27	15	0.23
Fliere 1977		3	0.49	4	0.04	3	0.21	3	0.60	40	0.18	7	0.33
Fou 1978		5	0.47	9	0.01	7	0.10	8	0.47	50	0.06	22	0.17
Francois 1956		56	0.36	54	0.00	60	0.05	61	0.05	58	0.05	60	0.05
Friedman 1923		75	0.28	49	0.00	70	0.03	78	0.03	48	0.06	69	0.04
Friedman 1923b		73	0.30	62	0.00	61	0.05	59	0.05	65	0.04	66	0.04
Friedman 1930		76	0.26	55	0.00	75	0.03	81	0.03	63	0.04	77	0.03
Garcia 2007		71	0.30	56	0.00	77	0.04	63	0.04	52	0.05	65	0.04
Garcia 2007b		74	0.29	70	0.00	72	0.03	73	0.03	75	0.04	83	0.03
Gierzod 1998		8	0.43	71	0.00	38	0.06	23	0.26	84	0.03	44	0.09
Gornostaeva 1994		9	0.43	26	0.00	16	0.08	13	0.39	50	0.05	28	0.14
Groot 1988		10	0.43	24	0.01	11	0.10	9	0.47	39	0.14	12	0.26
Harasiewicz 1955		17	0.41	33	0.00	55	0.07	47	0.07	82	0.03	59	0.05
Hatto 1993		50	0.37	27	0.00	21	0.07	18	0.30	66	0.04	35	0.11
Hatto 1997		43	0.38	79	0.00	20	0.07	17	0.33	63	0.04	34	0.11
Horowitz 1949		40	0.38	5	0.03	25	0.06	29	0.22	15	0.45	9	0.31
Indjic 1988		44	0.37	22	0.01	19	0.08	16	0.33	57	0.05	29	0.13
Kapell 1951		51	0.37	28	0.00	48	0.05	53	0.05	64	0.05	55	0.05
Kissin 1993		39	0.38	66	0.00	56	0.05	55	0.05	61	0.05	57	0.05
Kushner 1989		18	0.41	40	0.00	50	0.06	50	0.06	78	0.03	62	0.04
Luisada 1991		2	0.51	16	0.01	2	0.22	2	0.62	11	0.58	1	0.60
Lushtak 2004		26	0.40	80	0.00	30	0.05	22	0.26	74	0.04	39	0.10
Malcuzynski 1961		63	0.33	17	0.01	73	0.03	71	0.03	88	0.02	87	0.02
Magaloff 1978		64	0.33	85	0.00	76	0.03	69	0.03	73	0.03	70	0.03
Magin 1975		7	0.45	6	0.03	12	0.08	20	0.27	62	0.04	38	0.10
Michalowski 1933		45	0.37	8	0.02	26	0.06	36	0.16	11	0.52	10	0.29
Milkina 1970		12	0.43	38	0.00	17	0.09	14	0.39	61	0.05	27	0.14
Mohovich 1999		20	0.41	25	0.01	18	0.08	11	0.43	45	0.10	17	0.21
Moravec 1969		42	0.38	67	0.00	53	0.06	48	0.06	65	0.05	53	0.05
Morozova 2008		62	0.33	39	0.00	58	0.06	49	0.06	66	0.05	58	0.05
Neighaus 1950		16	0.42	20	0.01	6	0.10	7	0.47	11	0.52	2	0.49
Niedzielski 1931		30	0.39	12	0.01	13	0.06	15	0.36	10	0.45	5	0.40
Ohlsson 1999		29	0.39	11	0.01	14	0.06	27	0.24	47	0.06	33	0.12
Osinska 1989		27	0.40	60	0.00	42	0.07	34	0.19	68	0.04	40	0.09
Pachmann 1927		88	0.11	81	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	89	0.01	90	0.01
Paderewski 1930		85	0.21	83	0.00	85	0.03	70	0.03	57	0.05	63	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		54	0.36	10	0.01	46	0.05	57	0.05	31	0.27	32	0.12
Pierdomenico 2008		80	0.26	36	0.00	78	0.03	83	0.03	81	0.03	72	0.03
Poblocka 1999		59	0.34	58	0.00	57	0.05	54	0.05	61	0.06	54	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		83	0.23	90	0.00	63	0.03	66	0.03	78	0.03	73	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		68	0.32	63	0.00	74	0.03	74	0.03	75	0.03	71	0.03
Rangell 2001		78	0.26	32	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	59	0.06	67	0.04
Richter 1976		34	0.39	2	0.08	9	0.09	35	0.17	53	0.04	47	0.08
Rosen 1989		58	0.35	72	0.00	71	0.03	75	0.03	84	0.03	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		46	0.37	43	0.00	49	0.05	58	0.05	32	0.35	30	0.13
Rosenthal 1931		47	0.37	15	0.01	33	0.05	45	0.10	34	0.25	24	0.16
Rosenthal 1931b		35	0.39	31	0.00	32	0.05	31	0.21	15	0.50	8	0.32
Rosenthal 1931c		24	0.40	50	0.00	37	0.06	28	0.23	35	0.21	16	0.22
Rosenthal 1931d		32	0.39	21	0.01	28	0.07	26	0.24	14	0.50	6	0.35
Rossi 2007		70	0.31	57	0.00	68	0.03	80	0.03	58	0.05	61	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		77	0.26	46	0.00	80	0.03	85	0.03	89	0.02	85	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		66	0.32	91	0.00	66	0.04	64	0.04	70	0.04	68	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		61	0.34	86	0.00	69	0.04	65	0.04	81	0.03	76	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		60	0.34	14	0.01	39	0.07	38	0.15	50	0.05	42	0.09
Shebanova 2002		81	0.25	48	0.00	83	0.03	68	0.03	84	0.03	79	0.03
Smith 1975		11	0.43	18	0.01	15	0.07	12	0.40	44	0.17	11	0.26
Sokolov 2002		14	0.42	19	0.01	8	0.09	6	0.49	28	0.40	4	0.44
Sztompka 1959		65	0.33	30	0.00	59	0.05	60	0.05	60	0.05	56	0.05
Tomsic 1995		41	0.38	59	0.00	52	0.06	52	0.06	56	0.06	50	0.06
Uninsky 1932		82	0.25	87	0.00	84	0.03	76	0.03	59	0.04	78	0.03
Uninsky 1971		55	0.36	64	0.00	65	0.03	67	0.03	69	0.04	74	0.03
Wasowski 1980		33	0.39	34	0.00	45	0.07	43	0.13	49	0.07	36	0.10
Zak 1937		21	0.41	35	0.00	43	0.05	40	0.15	67	0.04	46	0.08
Zak 1951		31	0.39	47	0.00	44	0.06	42	0.13	48	0.06	41	0.09
Average		1	0.58	1	0.50	1	0.50	1	0.75	64	0.04	23	0.17
Random 1		90	-0.06	88	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	33	0.21	52	0.06
Random 2		91	-0.09	89	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	87	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		89	-0.04	65	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	75	0.03	88	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).