Falvay 1989

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		52	0.46	38	0.00	58	0.04	80	0.04	36	0.20	72	0.09
Anderszewski 2003		11	0.63	6	0.02	13	0.10	9	0.66	4	0.68	10	0.67
Ashkenazy 1981		68	0.41	56	0.00	77	0.04	73	0.04	72	0.03	87	0.03
Bacha 2000		77	0.36	36	0.00	80	0.04	64	0.04	81	0.03	84	0.03
Badura 1965		58	0.44	66	0.00	61	0.05	60	0.05	13	0.46	51	0.15
Barbosa 1983		21	0.59	42	0.00	14	0.08	17	0.58	13	0.61	20	0.59
Biret 1990		32	0.56	16	0.01	36	0.14	32	0.45	18	0.47	32	0.46
Blet 2003		69	0.41	57	0.00	73	0.03	85	0.03	44	0.13	75	0.06
Block 1995		16	0.62	15	0.01	5	0.21	4	0.73	1	0.83	4	0.78
Blumental 1952		24	0.58	23	0.00	26	0.09	22	0.55	8	0.70	17	0.62
Boshniakovich 1969		46	0.48	47	0.00	21	0.09	39	0.35	22	0.37	40	0.36
Brailowsky 1960		19	0.61	7	0.01	22	0.08	29	0.47	8	0.69	23	0.57
Bunin 1987		47	0.47	75	0.00	41	0.07	41	0.21	9	0.57	41	0.35
Bunin 1987b		56	0.44	64	0.00	43	0.08	44	0.16	9	0.56	43	0.30
Chiu 1999		44	0.50	85	0.00	46	0.05	49	0.05	3	0.54	48	0.16
Cohen 1997		70	0.41	13	0.01	59	0.05	57	0.05	10	0.40	56	0.14
Cortot 1951		86	0.23	76	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	68	0.03	90	0.02
Csalog 1996		4	0.66	2	0.08	3	0.32	3	0.76	1	0.82	2	0.79
Czerny 1949		48	0.47	67	0.00	54	0.04	63	0.04	45	0.13	74	0.07
Czerny 1990		5	0.66	5	0.05	4	0.23	12	0.63	19	0.66	14	0.64
Duchoud 2007		84	0.25	58	0.00	84	0.04	83	0.04	54	0.06	78	0.05
Ezaki 2006		6	0.66	11	0.01	9	0.14	6	0.70	5	0.70	5	0.70
Falvay 1989		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Farrell 1958		63	0.43	68	0.00	55	0.05	59	0.05	43	0.17	70	0.09
Ferenczy 1958		18	0.61	20	0.00	19	0.10	16	0.60	1	0.79	9	0.69
Fliere 1977		13	0.62	37	0.00	16	0.08	13	0.62	5	0.63	16	0.62
Fou 1978		25	0.58	30	0.00	37	0.11	38	0.36	22	0.40	38	0.38
Francois 1956		85	0.24	86	0.00	85	0.03	84	0.03	77	0.03	88	0.03
Friedman 1923		78	0.35	87	0.00	76	0.04	72	0.04	35	0.23	68	0.10
Friedman 1923b		79	0.35	34	0.00	74	0.04	74	0.04	30	0.27	67	0.10
Friedman 1930		61	0.43	59	0.00	52	0.05	51	0.05	9	0.57	46	0.17
Garcia 2007		75	0.38	60	0.00	64	0.04	71	0.04	24	0.42	59	0.13
Garcia 2007b		55	0.45	39	0.00	48	0.05	54	0.05	23	0.43	53	0.15
Gierzod 1998		7	0.66	48	0.00	8	0.18	7	0.69	6	0.63	12	0.66
Gornostaeva 1994		29	0.57	4	0.06	7	0.15	24	0.52	9	0.59	25	0.55
Groot 1988		54	0.45	44	0.00	51	0.05	58	0.05	25	0.28	62	0.12
Harasiewicz 1955		15	0.62	49	0.00	24	0.09	18	0.58	17	0.60	22	0.59
Hatto 1993		38	0.55	32	0.00	33	0.13	31	0.46	21	0.47	33	0.46
Hatto 1997		37	0.55	61	0.00	35	0.10	34	0.41	27	0.42	36	0.41
Horowitz 1949		81	0.34	77	0.00	82	0.05	56	0.05	39	0.15	71	0.09
Indjic 1988		30	0.56	24	0.00	32	0.12	27	0.47	18	0.51	29	0.49
Kapell 1951		26	0.58	21	0.00	27	0.09	26	0.50	14	0.59	26	0.54
Kissin 1993		33	0.56	78	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.14	31	0.42	45	0.24
Kushner 1989		3	0.67	25	0.00	6	0.16	5	0.72	5	0.67	7	0.69
Luisada 1991		34	0.55	79	0.00	40	0.11	40	0.32	7	0.61	35	0.44
Lushtak 2004		27	0.58	14	0.01	23	0.09	14	0.61	5	0.66	15	0.63
Malcuzynski 1961		43	0.50	31	0.00	38	0.09	37	0.36	31	0.38	39	0.37
Magaloff 1978		41	0.51	69	0.00	56	0.06	47	0.06	40	0.20	63	0.11
Magin 1975		22	0.59	40	0.00	28	0.11	21	0.57	5	0.66	19	0.61
Michalowski 1933		87	0.18	80	0.00	87	0.03	87	0.03	57	0.03	86	0.03
Milkina 1970		35	0.55	45	0.00	34	0.09	30	0.46	32	0.35	37	0.40
Mohovich 1999		23	0.58	22	0.00	15	0.09	15	0.61	8	0.64	18	0.62
Moravec 1969		9	0.65	8	0.01	12	0.15	19	0.57	2	0.74	13	0.65
Morozova 2008		62	0.43	88	0.00	67	0.05	53	0.05	55	0.06	77	0.05
Neighaus 1950		83	0.33	70	0.00	83	0.04	79	0.04	46	0.06	79	0.05
Niedzielski 1931		82	0.33	62	0.00	49	0.05	52	0.05	6	0.46	49	0.15
Ohlsson 1999		49	0.47	63	0.00	53	0.04	66	0.04	26	0.39	61	0.12
Osinska 1989		2	0.69	3	0.06	2	0.35	2	0.81	2	0.81	1	0.81
Pachmann 1927		80	0.35	81	0.00	79	0.04	61	0.04	26	0.37	60	0.12
Paderewski 1930		88	0.14	82	0.00	88	0.03	86	0.03	58	0.04	85	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		53	0.45	89	0.00	60	0.05	55	0.05	6	0.53	47	0.16
Pierdomenico 2008		72	0.39	90	0.00	70	0.04	75	0.04	39	0.22	69	0.09
Poblocka 1999		8	0.66	26	0.00	10	0.13	10	0.66	6	0.66	11	0.66
Rabcewiczowa 1932		57	0.44	35	0.00	42	0.07	42	0.19	23	0.36	44	0.26
Rachmaninoff 1923		66	0.41	50	0.00	65	0.04	67	0.04	40	0.17	73	0.08
Rangell 2001		50	0.46	71	0.00	62	0.04	69	0.04	31	0.33	65	0.11
Richter 1976		40	0.51	29	0.00	50	0.06	48	0.06	27	0.38	50	0.15
Rosen 1989		31	0.56	53	0.00	31	0.10	28	0.47	6	0.64	24	0.55
Rosenthal 1930		76	0.37	72	0.00	81	0.04	70	0.04	54	0.05	83	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		51	0.46	52	0.00	57	0.04	68	0.04	11	0.52	55	0.14
Rosenthal 1931b		67	0.41	73	0.00	78	0.06	46	0.06	24	0.36	52	0.15
Rosenthal 1931c		45	0.49	51	0.00	44	0.07	43	0.16	12	0.62	42	0.31
Rosenthal 1931d		64	0.43	27	0.00	68	0.04	76	0.04	16	0.49	57	0.14
Rossi 2007		73	0.39	9	0.01	63	0.04	78	0.04	20	0.41	58	0.13
Rubinstein 1939		59	0.44	43	0.00	71	0.04	77	0.04	57	0.04	80	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		14	0.62	19	0.00	29	0.11	25	0.51	22	0.51	28	0.51
Rubinstein 1966		17	0.62	46	0.00	25	0.08	20	0.57	23	0.52	27	0.54
Schilhawsky 1960		60	0.44	41	0.00	69	0.04	81	0.04	52	0.05	82	0.04
Shebanova 2002		20	0.60	12	0.01	11	0.13	23	0.53	4	0.65	21	0.59
Smith 1975		28	0.57	28	0.00	30	0.10	36	0.37	11	0.55	34	0.45
Sokolov 2002		71	0.40	54	0.00	66	0.04	65	0.04	40	0.23	66	0.10
Sztompka 1959		65	0.43	65	0.00	75	0.04	62	0.04	65	0.04	81	0.04
Tomsic 1995		39	0.54	18	0.00	20	0.09	33	0.41	11	0.55	30	0.47
Uninsky 1932		74	0.39	83	0.00	72	0.04	82	0.04	32	0.29	64	0.11
Uninsky 1971		42	0.50	84	0.00	47	0.05	50	0.05	27	0.38	54	0.14
Wasowski 1980		36	0.55	33	0.00	39	0.11	35	0.38	8	0.56	31	0.46
Zak 1937		10	0.64	17	0.00	18	0.10	11	0.65	4	0.73	8	0.69
Zak 1951		12	0.63	10	0.01	17	0.08	8	0.66	4	0.74	6	0.70
Average		1	0.77	1	0.59	1	0.59	1	0.88	8	0.71	3	0.79
Random 1		90	-0.08	74	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	39	0.18	76	0.06
Random 2		89	-0.01	91	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	60	0.03	89	0.02
Random 3		91	-0.18	55	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	80	0.02	91	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).