Ferenczy 1958

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		55	0.35	56	0.00	67	0.07	47	0.07	51	0.05	51	0.06
Anderszewski 2003		31	0.41	50	0.00	34	0.10	30	0.39	69	0.04	39	0.12
Ashkenazy 1981		77	0.27	64	0.00	84	0.03	74	0.03	85	0.02	88	0.02
Bacha 2000		80	0.24	57	0.00	83	0.03	79	0.03	87	0.02	82	0.02
Badura 1965		36	0.40	14	0.01	40	0.06	40	0.17	56	0.05	44	0.09
Barbosa 1983		24	0.44	61	0.00	33	0.10	31	0.35	49	0.08	30	0.17
Biret 1990		37	0.40	58	0.00	27	0.07	37	0.24	71	0.04	41	0.10
Blet 2003		49	0.37	9	0.02	26	0.07	36	0.27	33	0.19	22	0.23
Block 1995		25	0.44	3	0.11	5	0.18	14	0.57	16	0.49	5	0.53
Blumental 1952		4	0.55	4	0.08	3	0.23	4	0.74	14	0.60	3	0.67
Boshniakovich 1969		41	0.39	77	0.00	35	0.11	35	0.28	74	0.03	45	0.09
Brailowsky 1960		7	0.52	5	0.05	6	0.17	5	0.69	19	0.53	4	0.60
Bunin 1987		47	0.37	62	0.00	47	0.06	57	0.06	60	0.05	58	0.05
Bunin 1987b		54	0.35	44	0.00	59	0.05	62	0.05	75	0.04	63	0.04
Chiu 1999		30	0.41	13	0.01	20	0.07	17	0.54	13	0.43	7	0.48
Cohen 1997		83	0.23	63	0.00	70	0.03	80	0.03	81	0.03	79	0.03
Cortot 1951		81	0.24	71	0.00	81	0.03	81	0.03	61	0.05	69	0.04
Csalog 1996		2	0.61	1	0.35	1	0.34	2	0.78	3	0.69	1	0.73
Czerny 1949		63	0.32	78	0.00	69	0.05	66	0.05	80	0.03	66	0.04
Czerny 1990		17	0.48	31	0.00	14	0.13	13	0.59	52	0.06	26	0.19
Duchoud 2007		87	0.10	65	0.00	86	0.03	77	0.03	81	0.02	86	0.02
Ezaki 2006		23	0.45	55	0.00	36	0.11	34	0.30	67	0.05	38	0.12
Falvay 1989		1	0.61	2	0.20	2	0.45	1	0.79	16	0.60	2	0.69
Farrell 1958		84	0.22	59	0.00	79	0.03	87	0.03	84	0.03	71	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Fliere 1977		6	0.53	23	0.00	9	0.13	7	0.67	69	0.05	27	0.18
Fou 1978		22	0.45	30	0.00	17	0.07	19	0.52	44	0.11	21	0.24
Francois 1956		86	0.12	53	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	88	0.02	89	0.02
Friedman 1923		69	0.30	40	0.00	56	0.05	61	0.05	39	0.15	47	0.09
Friedman 1923b		68	0.31	37	0.00	55	0.06	56	0.06	43	0.15	46	0.09
Friedman 1930		65	0.32	29	0.00	57	0.07	48	0.07	52	0.06	50	0.06
Garcia 2007		78	0.27	72	0.00	75	0.04	71	0.04	48	0.05	67	0.04
Garcia 2007b		71	0.28	73	0.00	72	0.03	82	0.03	72	0.04	81	0.03
Gierzod 1998		12	0.50	18	0.00	21	0.08	16	0.54	67	0.04	35	0.15
Gornostaeva 1994		15	0.48	88	0.00	18	0.10	18	0.53	38	0.23	13	0.35
Groot 1988		34	0.41	8	0.02	24	0.07	22	0.51	40	0.14	20	0.27
Harasiewicz 1955		16	0.48	43	0.00	19	0.13	24	0.48	51	0.06	33	0.17
Hatto 1993		11	0.50	11	0.01	10	0.13	9	0.63	39	0.20	14	0.35
Hatto 1997		9	0.51	46	0.00	11	0.10	10	0.63	41	0.15	16	0.31
Horowitz 1949		60	0.34	19	0.00	38	0.08	39	0.19	16	0.43	19	0.29
Indjic 1988		8	0.51	28	0.00	12	0.12	11	0.63	46	0.08	24	0.22
Kapell 1951		50	0.36	89	0.00	52	0.04	68	0.04	77	0.03	72	0.03
Kissin 1993		51	0.36	82	0.00	53	0.05	60	0.05	54	0.06	56	0.05
Kushner 1989		52	0.36	90	0.00	61	0.07	50	0.07	84	0.03	54	0.05
Luisada 1991		21	0.46	6	0.03	16	0.09	23	0.49	24	0.38	9	0.43
Lushtak 2004		35	0.41	16	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.15	87	0.03	48	0.07
Malcuzynski 1961		48	0.37	38	0.00	51	0.04	69	0.04	67	0.04	64	0.04
Magaloff 1978		43	0.39	60	0.00	54	0.05	64	0.05	66	0.04	60	0.04
Magin 1975		46	0.37	69	0.00	62	0.06	59	0.06	58	0.04	53	0.05
Michalowski 1933		88	0.08	79	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	90	0.01	90	0.01
Milkina 1970		62	0.32	83	0.00	74	0.03	75	0.03	86	0.02	84	0.02
Mohovich 1999		18	0.46	41	0.00	15	0.09	15	0.57	56	0.05	32	0.17
Moravec 1969		14	0.49	15	0.01	13	0.11	12	0.60	32	0.24	10	0.38
Morozova 2008		74	0.27	12	0.01	80	0.03	78	0.03	87	0.03	78	0.03
Neighaus 1950		73	0.28	51	0.00	65	0.06	54	0.06	54	0.05	59	0.05
Niedzielski 1931		56	0.34	35	0.00	29	0.07	33	0.33	12	0.43	11	0.38
Ohlsson 1999		72	0.28	84	0.00	73	0.03	76	0.03	75	0.03	76	0.03
Osinska 1989		5	0.55	10	0.02	8	0.19	8	0.66	57	0.06	25	0.20
Pachmann 1927		82	0.24	52	0.00	78	0.03	86	0.03	73	0.03	75	0.03
Paderewski 1930		85	0.14	54	0.00	85	0.04	72	0.04	78	0.03	74	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		67	0.32	21	0.00	42	0.06	45	0.11	45	0.10	40	0.10
Pierdomenico 2008		76	0.27	42	0.00	50	0.04	67	0.04	66	0.04	61	0.04
Poblocka 1999		10	0.51	22	0.00	7	0.19	6	0.68	32	0.31	8	0.46
Rabcewiczowa 1932		61	0.33	39	0.00	58	0.06	52	0.06	73	0.03	62	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		38	0.40	20	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.13	47	0.06	42	0.09
Rangell 2001		79	0.24	32	0.00	82	0.04	73	0.04	74	0.04	68	0.04
Richter 1976		58	0.34	66	0.00	68	0.05	65	0.05	87	0.02	73	0.03
Rosen 1989		26	0.43	7	0.02	23	0.09	20	0.51	45	0.19	17	0.31
Rosenthal 1930		29	0.42	45	0.00	46	0.06	58	0.06	26	0.39	36	0.15
Rosenthal 1931		39	0.39	49	0.00	39	0.07	38	0.22	20	0.42	18	0.30
Rosenthal 1931b		44	0.39	75	0.00	45	0.06	44	0.12	19	0.45	23	0.23
Rosenthal 1931c		33	0.41	17	0.00	30	0.07	28	0.39	21	0.38	12	0.38
Rosenthal 1931d		27	0.43	36	0.00	32	0.09	26	0.43	12	0.56	6	0.49
Rossi 2007		75	0.27	34	0.00	76	0.04	70	0.04	77	0.03	70	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		70	0.29	67	0.00	77	0.03	85	0.03	88	0.02	83	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		53	0.36	70	0.00	64	0.06	51	0.06	88	0.02	80	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		42	0.39	80	0.00	49	0.05	63	0.05	79	0.03	65	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		59	0.34	85	0.00	71	0.03	83	0.03	76	0.03	77	0.03
Shebanova 2002		32	0.41	76	0.00	25	0.08	27	0.42	66	0.04	37	0.13
Smith 1975		40	0.39	33	0.00	41	0.05	41	0.15	56	0.05	43	0.09
Sokolov 2002		66	0.32	86	0.00	60	0.07	49	0.07	63	0.03	52	0.05
Sztompka 1959		57	0.34	68	0.00	66	0.08	46	0.08	49	0.05	49	0.06
Tomsic 1995		45	0.39	81	0.00	48	0.06	53	0.06	65	0.05	55	0.05
Uninsky 1932		64	0.32	47	0.00	63	0.06	55	0.06	65	0.04	57	0.05
Uninsky 1971		20	0.46	27	0.00	31	0.07	25	0.44	48	0.07	29	0.18
Wasowski 1980		28	0.42	24	0.00	37	0.13	29	0.39	57	0.06	34	0.15
Zak 1937		13	0.49	26	0.00	22	0.09	21	0.51	38	0.23	15	0.34
Zak 1951		19	0.46	74	0.00	28	0.09	32	0.34	40	0.10	28	0.18
Average		3	0.58	25	0.00	4	0.26	3	0.75	74	0.04	31	0.17
Random 1		90	-0.09	48	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	61	0.03	87	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.05	87	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	75	0.03	85	0.02
Random 3		91	-0.14	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	87	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).