Horowitz 1949

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