Hatto 1997

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	0.42	23	0.00	77	0.05	52	0.05	26	0.38	55	0.14
Anderszewski 2003		26	0.52	24	0.00	14	0.07	19	0.45	29	0.43	26	0.44
Ashkenazy 1981		74	0.35	25	0.00	84	0.03	86	0.03	73	0.03	88	0.03
Bacha 2000		57	0.42	26	0.00	76	0.04	67	0.04	13	0.46	51	0.14
Badura 1965		46	0.45	3	0.00	49	0.05	50	0.05	11	0.47	49	0.15
Barbosa 1983		17	0.54	27	0.00	36	0.11	33	0.34	59	0.07	48	0.15
Biret 1990		18	0.54	28	0.00	22	0.10	16	0.52	19	0.47	19	0.49
Blet 2003		69	0.38	29	0.00	48	0.04	63	0.04	17	0.33	68	0.11
Block 1995		68	0.38	30	0.00	68	0.04	72	0.04	46	0.07	84	0.05
Blumental 1952		9	0.57	31	0.00	17	0.07	10	0.55	10	0.67	9	0.61
Boshniakovich 1969		44	0.46	5	0.00	28	0.09	32	0.35	29	0.29	37	0.32
Brailowsky 1960		35	0.50	32	0.00	40	0.09	40	0.21	36	0.33	39	0.26
Bunin 1987		56	0.42	33	0.00	62	0.04	70	0.04	27	0.26	75	0.10
Bunin 1987b		60	0.41	34	0.00	63	0.04	64	0.04	24	0.35	61	0.12
Chiu 1999		58	0.42	35	0.00	67	0.04	71	0.04	28	0.25	72	0.10
Cohen 1997		73	0.37	4	0.00	58	0.05	54	0.05	6	0.54	46	0.16
Cortot 1951		77	0.34	36	0.00	78	0.04	74	0.04	20	0.46	56	0.14
Csalog 1996		37	0.48	37	0.00	11	0.08	31	0.36	15	0.47	30	0.41
Czerny 1949		29	0.51	38	0.00	10	0.09	12	0.54	24	0.61	12	0.57
Czerny 1990		10	0.57	39	0.00	8	0.14	7	0.68	20	0.66	6	0.67
Duchoud 2007		82	0.31	40	0.00	85	0.04	69	0.04	42	0.22	76	0.09
Ezaki 2006		13	0.55	41	0.00	35	0.09	28	0.40	31	0.28	36	0.33
Falvay 1989		12	0.55	14	0.00	30	0.10	27	0.42	34	0.41	29	0.41
Farrell 1958		53	0.42	42	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.09	31	0.34	44	0.17
Ferenczy 1958		30	0.51	43	0.00	41	0.07	41	0.15	10	0.63	38	0.31
Fliere 1977		16	0.54	44	0.00	34	0.10	30	0.39	33	0.36	32	0.37
Fou 1978		47	0.45	45	0.00	59	0.05	49	0.05	52	0.06	83	0.05
Francois 1956		79	0.32	46	0.00	75	0.03	82	0.03	38	0.20	78	0.08
Friedman 1923		61	0.40	15	0.00	55	0.05	53	0.05	7	0.57	45	0.17
Friedman 1923b		64	0.39	47	0.00	66	0.04	66	0.04	12	0.54	50	0.15
Friedman 1930		67	0.38	7	0.00	69	0.03	80	0.03	20	0.43	69	0.11
Garcia 2007		78	0.34	11	0.00	64	0.04	68	0.04	21	0.45	60	0.13
Garcia 2007b		51	0.43	6	0.00	31	0.08	36	0.31	15	0.56	28	0.42
Gierzod 1998		5	0.64	48	0.00	5	0.32	6	0.70	8	0.62	7	0.66
Gornostaeva 1994		55	0.42	16	0.00	60	0.04	59	0.04	43	0.09	81	0.06
Groot 1988		19	0.53	49	0.00	15	0.07	17	0.51	2	0.60	13	0.55
Harasiewicz 1955		7	0.60	17	0.00	9	0.21	8	0.67	11	0.63	8	0.65
Hatto 1993		2	0.97	2	0.31	2	0.96	2	0.99	2	0.99	2	0.99
Hatto 1997		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Horowitz 1949		81	0.31	50	0.00	81	0.03	79	0.03	20	0.39	67	0.11
Indjic 1988		1	0.98	1	0.68	1	0.68	1	1.00	1	1.00	1	1.00
Kapell 1951		48	0.45	51	0.00	53	0.07	46	0.07	48	0.08	79	0.07
Kissin 1993		38	0.48	52	0.00	13	0.07	34	0.34	26	0.47	31	0.40
Kushner 1989		15	0.54	53	0.00	18	0.07	11	0.54	29	0.37	23	0.45
Luisada 1991		41	0.48	54	0.00	42	0.06	42	0.12	17	0.49	40	0.24
Lushtak 2004		14	0.54	55	0.00	21	0.09	13	0.53	12	0.56	15	0.54
Malcuzynski 1961		32	0.50	56	0.00	26	0.08	20	0.45	29	0.40	27	0.42
Magaloff 1978		11	0.56	57	0.00	19	0.07	18	0.51	4	0.65	10	0.58
Magin 1975		43	0.46	58	0.00	51	0.04	57	0.04	34	0.24	73	0.10
Michalowski 1933		88	0.12	59	0.00	88	0.03	89	0.03	86	0.02	89	0.02
Milkina 1970		8	0.59	60	0.00	7	0.13	9	0.62	23	0.47	14	0.54
Mohovich 1999		20	0.53	12	0.00	20	0.08	15	0.52	19	0.51	17	0.51
Moravec 1969		31	0.51	61	0.00	32	0.09	29	0.39	14	0.51	22	0.45
Morozova 2008		63	0.39	62	0.00	56	0.04	56	0.04	39	0.14	80	0.07
Neighaus 1950		80	0.32	63	0.00	74	0.04	77	0.04	24	0.36	64	0.12
Niedzielski 1931		83	0.29	13	0.00	83	0.03	81	0.03	45	0.09	82	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		45	0.46	64	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.09	27	0.39	43	0.19
Osinska 1989		4	0.67	65	0.00	4	0.28	4	0.77	9	0.68	4	0.72
Pachmann 1927		87	0.21	66	0.00	87	0.03	85	0.03	67	0.03	87	0.03
Paderewski 1930		86	0.23	67	0.00	73	0.03	84	0.03	11	0.48	62	0.12
Perlemuter 1992		76	0.34	68	0.00	57	0.05	48	0.05	13	0.43	47	0.15
Pierdomenico 2008		70	0.37	8	0.00	50	0.04	65	0.04	19	0.50	52	0.14
Poblocka 1999		24	0.52	9	0.00	29	0.09	26	0.42	22	0.46	25	0.44
Rabcewiczowa 1932		50	0.43	10	0.00	37	0.09	38	0.22	32	0.27	41	0.24
Rachmaninoff 1923		42	0.47	69	0.00	25	0.09	35	0.31	21	0.45	33	0.37
Rangell 2001		71	0.37	18	0.00	72	0.03	87	0.03	37	0.22	77	0.08
Richter 1976		75	0.35	70	0.00	82	0.03	83	0.03	74	0.03	86	0.03
Rosen 1989		22	0.53	71	0.00	12	0.07	25	0.42	10	0.58	18	0.49
Rosenthal 1930		59	0.42	72	0.00	70	0.03	78	0.03	25	0.40	71	0.11
Rosenthal 1931		62	0.40	73	0.00	71	0.04	60	0.04	24	0.40	59	0.13
Rosenthal 1931b		66	0.38	74	0.00	80	0.04	61	0.04	21	0.39	65	0.12
Rosenthal 1931c		49	0.45	75	0.00	54	0.04	58	0.04	18	0.46	57	0.14
Rosenthal 1931d		65	0.39	76	0.00	79	0.04	76	0.04	24	0.37	63	0.12
Rossi 2007		85	0.27	77	0.00	86	0.04	62	0.04	68	0.04	85	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		25	0.52	78	0.00	24	0.09	24	0.43	11	0.54	20	0.48
Rubinstein 1952		34	0.50	19	0.00	27	0.08	23	0.45	25	0.45	24	0.45
Rubinstein 1966		6	0.60	20	0.00	6	0.27	5	0.72	10	0.67	5	0.69
Schilhawsky 1960		33	0.50	21	0.00	39	0.10	37	0.27	24	0.46	34	0.35
Shebanova 2002		36	0.49	79	0.00	23	0.08	21	0.45	9	0.57	16	0.51
Smith 1975		39	0.48	80	0.00	52	0.05	51	0.05	29	0.35	58	0.13
Sokolov 2002		40	0.48	81	0.00	38	0.09	39	0.21	11	0.54	35	0.34
Sztompka 1959		72	0.37	82	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.10	32	0.37	42	0.19
Tomsic 1995		54	0.42	83	0.00	65	0.04	75	0.04	29	0.28	66	0.11
Uninsky 1932		84	0.27	84	0.00	61	0.04	73	0.04	36	0.23	74	0.10
Uninsky 1971		21	0.53	85	0.00	16	0.09	14	0.52	10	0.62	11	0.57
Wasowski 1980		23	0.52	22	0.00	33	0.10	22	0.45	17	0.50	21	0.47
Zak 1937		27	0.51	86	0.00	46	0.05	55	0.05	27	0.40	53	0.14
Zak 1951		28	0.51	87	0.00	47	0.06	47	0.06	27	0.34	54	0.14
Average		3	0.74	88	0.00	3	0.72	3	0.89	11	0.69	3	0.78
Random 1		91	-0.12	89	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	86	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	0.05	90	0.00	89	0.03	88	0.03	12	0.42	70	0.11
Random 3		90	-0.10	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	77	0.03	90	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).