Friedman 1930

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		29	0.36	20	0.00	16	0.08	14	0.48	13	0.48	7	0.48
Anderszewski 2003		49	0.31	56	0.00	54	0.06	51	0.06	74	0.03	66	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		40	0.33	14	0.01	29	0.07	24	0.37	16	0.43	9	0.40
Bacha 2000		86	0.15	81	0.00	86	0.03	86	0.03	69	0.03	70	0.03
Badura 1965		41	0.33	15	0.01	44	0.06	41	0.17	49	0.07	40	0.11
Barbosa 1983		47	0.32	47	0.00	43	0.07	42	0.17	60	0.06	41	0.10
Biret 1990		8	0.43	27	0.00	7	0.13	8	0.58	54	0.05	21	0.17
Blet 2003		64	0.26	67	0.00	66	0.04	63	0.04	81	0.03	80	0.03
Block 1995		76	0.24	89	0.00	65	0.05	59	0.05	70	0.04	67	0.04
Blumental 1952		33	0.35	38	0.00	25	0.08	23	0.38	59	0.05	25	0.14
Boshniakovich 1969		22	0.38	68	0.00	39	0.08	33	0.25	79	0.03	44	0.09
Brailowsky 1960		46	0.32	16	0.01	35	0.06	40	0.20	50	0.07	33	0.12
Bunin 1987		56	0.29	22	0.00	32	0.07	36	0.23	46	0.07	31	0.13
Bunin 1987b		73	0.25	82	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.14	59	0.05	47	0.08
Chiu 1999		20	0.38	7	0.02	22	0.06	32	0.26	62	0.05	36	0.11
Cohen 1997		74	0.25	58	0.00	53	0.07	50	0.07	45	0.08	49	0.07
Cortot 1951		88	0.00	90	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	91	0.01	91	0.01
Csalog 1996		52	0.31	18	0.00	55	0.06	56	0.06	70	0.04	55	0.05
Czerny 1949		65	0.26	71	0.00	75	0.03	85	0.03	83	0.02	87	0.02
Czerny 1990		11	0.42	48	0.00	19	0.08	22	0.42	57	0.05	26	0.14
Duchoud 2007		62	0.27	24	0.00	58	0.05	62	0.05	45	0.15	43	0.09
Ezaki 2006		67	0.26	74	0.00	67	0.03	76	0.03	81	0.03	69	0.03
Falvay 1989		7	0.43	52	0.00	8	0.15	9	0.57	51	0.05	18	0.17
Farrell 1958		68	0.26	83	0.00	78	0.04	73	0.04	59	0.05	63	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		45	0.32	23	0.00	51	0.06	52	0.06	48	0.07	52	0.06
Fliere 1977		31	0.36	78	0.00	48	0.06	58	0.06	73	0.05	53	0.05
Fou 1978		57	0.28	28	0.00	71	0.04	70	0.04	84	0.03	74	0.03
Francois 1956		39	0.33	33	0.00	21	0.06	31	0.28	34	0.25	16	0.26
Friedman 1923		2	0.62	2	0.17	2	0.70	1	0.85	2	0.84	1	0.84
Friedman 1923b		1	0.63	1	0.58	1	0.57	2	0.82	2	0.83	2	0.82
Friedman 1930		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Garcia 2007		55	0.29	59	0.00	70	0.03	78	0.03	63	0.04	83	0.03
Garcia 2007b		26	0.37	19	0.00	41	0.06	44	0.15	64	0.05	46	0.09
Gierzod 1998		9	0.43	30	0.00	11	0.11	12	0.52	58	0.05	23	0.16
Gornostaeva 1994		19	0.38	49	0.00	34	0.06	30	0.30	48	0.06	32	0.13
Groot 1988		30	0.36	42	0.00	24	0.06	17	0.46	77	0.04	27	0.14
Harasiewicz 1955		17	0.39	43	0.00	38	0.07	35	0.24	76	0.03	48	0.08
Hatto 1993		15	0.40	75	0.00	12	0.11	11	0.52	53	0.05	24	0.16
Hatto 1997		23	0.38	21	0.00	26	0.07	20	0.43	80	0.03	39	0.11
Horowitz 1949		48	0.31	61	0.00	42	0.06	38	0.20	11	0.50	12	0.32
Indjic 1988		25	0.37	39	0.00	23	0.06	19	0.44	76	0.03	38	0.11
Kapell 1951		83	0.20	62	0.00	84	0.04	72	0.04	84	0.02	75	0.03
Kissin 1993		81	0.21	84	0.00	82	0.03	82	0.03	77	0.04	78	0.03
Kushner 1989		27	0.37	12	0.01	36	0.06	29	0.30	65	0.04	37	0.11
Luisada 1991		35	0.35	46	0.00	27	0.08	18	0.46	29	0.31	10	0.38
Lushtak 2004		32	0.36	64	0.00	46	0.07	46	0.07	69	0.04	58	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		61	0.27	53	0.00	72	0.03	81	0.03	82	0.02	85	0.02
Magaloff 1978		60	0.27	85	0.00	60	0.06	55	0.06	75	0.03	61	0.04
Magin 1975		10	0.42	5	0.02	9	0.14	7	0.59	41	0.15	15	0.30
Michalowski 1933		80	0.21	36	0.00	79	0.03	79	0.03	37	0.14	51	0.06
Milkina 1970		16	0.39	9	0.01	14	0.12	13	0.49	59	0.06	19	0.17
Mohovich 1999		36	0.35	29	0.00	37	0.07	34	0.24	71	0.04	42	0.10
Moravec 1969		63	0.27	69	0.00	68	0.04	71	0.04	76	0.03	71	0.03
Morozova 2008		77	0.24	86	0.00	76	0.03	80	0.03	79	0.03	81	0.03
Neighaus 1950		34	0.35	17	0.00	31	0.06	43	0.15	30	0.26	17	0.20
Niedzielski 1931		54	0.29	8	0.01	15	0.07	27	0.32	17	0.40	11	0.36
Ohlsson 1999		21	0.38	50	0.00	30	0.08	28	0.31	50	0.05	35	0.12
Osinska 1989		14	0.40	51	0.00	20	0.07	25	0.36	66	0.05	29	0.13
Pachmann 1927		82	0.21	35	0.00	85	0.04	75	0.04	66	0.03	77	0.03
Paderewski 1930		84	0.19	41	0.00	62	0.04	64	0.04	67	0.04	64	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		24	0.37	31	0.00	17	0.08	15	0.48	8	0.50	6	0.49
Pierdomenico 2008		59	0.27	25	0.00	61	0.04	66	0.04	58	0.05	62	0.04
Poblocka 1999		58	0.27	72	0.00	57	0.05	61	0.05	80	0.03	59	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		38	0.34	32	0.00	28	0.07	26	0.35	66	0.04	34	0.12
Rachmaninoff 1923		42	0.32	44	0.00	33	0.06	37	0.22	42	0.12	22	0.16
Rangell 2001		70	0.26	70	0.00	77	0.03	83	0.03	50	0.06	68	0.04
Richter 1976		69	0.26	34	0.00	74	0.04	74	0.04	70	0.03	76	0.03
Rosen 1989		12	0.42	65	0.00	13	0.11	16	0.47	43	0.20	14	0.31
Rosenthal 1930		44	0.32	76	0.00	56	0.07	47	0.07	37	0.23	30	0.13
Rosenthal 1931		72	0.25	73	0.00	64	0.05	60	0.05	64	0.04	65	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		43	0.32	26	0.00	52	0.07	49	0.07	29	0.30	28	0.14
Rosenthal 1931c		51	0.31	66	0.00	47	0.06	57	0.06	51	0.08	50	0.07
Rosenthal 1931d		66	0.26	54	0.00	69	0.03	84	0.03	66	0.04	84	0.03
Rossi 2007		79	0.22	63	0.00	80	0.04	69	0.04	56	0.05	60	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		75	0.25	87	0.00	73	0.03	77	0.03	59	0.04	73	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		37	0.35	57	0.00	40	0.06	39	0.20	71	0.04	45	0.09
Rubinstein 1966		28	0.37	37	0.00	49	0.06	53	0.06	65	0.05	56	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		53	0.30	79	0.00	59	0.07	48	0.07	87	0.03	57	0.05
Shebanova 2002		6	0.47	11	0.01	6	0.39	6	0.68	13	0.51	5	0.59
Smith 1975		18	0.38	13	0.01	18	0.07	21	0.42	41	0.23	13	0.31
Sokolov 2002		78	0.23	88	0.00	81	0.04	65	0.04	71	0.03	72	0.03
Sztompka 1959		50	0.31	40	0.00	50	0.06	54	0.06	54	0.05	54	0.05
Tomsic 1995		85	0.17	77	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	87	0.02	86	0.02
Uninsky 1932		87	0.10	91	0.00	87	0.04	68	0.04	89	0.02	82	0.03
Uninsky 1971		71	0.26	55	0.00	63	0.04	67	0.04	80	0.03	79	0.03
Wasowski 1980		13	0.41	6	0.02	10	0.16	10	0.53	31	0.35	8	0.43
Zak 1937		5	0.50	4	0.03	5	0.32	5	0.71	13	0.59	4	0.65
Zak 1951		4	0.51	3	0.03	4	0.27	3	0.74	11	0.61	3	0.67
Average		3	0.53	10	0.01	3	0.28	4	0.74	65	0.04	20	0.17
Random 1		91	-0.14	45	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	77	0.02	90	0.01
Random 2		89	-0.06	60	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	72	0.03	88	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.07	80	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	63	0.03	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).