Kapell 1951

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		82	0.27	53	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	73	0.03	89	0.02
Anderszewski 2003		5	0.63	11	0.01	4	0.18	7	0.71	7	0.66	6	0.68
Ashkenazy 1981		80	0.28	76	0.00	82	0.04	72	0.04	74	0.03	85	0.03
Bacha 2000		65	0.37	73	0.00	55	0.05	65	0.05	34	0.25	54	0.11
Badura 1965		74	0.34	79	0.00	66	0.06	60	0.06	46	0.07	67	0.06
Barbosa 1983		11	0.59	21	0.00	10	0.12	8	0.67	12	0.63	8	0.65
Biret 1990		48	0.44	48	0.00	57	0.06	52	0.06	53	0.05	72	0.05
Blet 2003		66	0.37	58	0.00	68	0.05	64	0.05	53	0.05	70	0.05
Block 1995		37	0.49	4	0.03	19	0.09	30	0.41	17	0.49	29	0.45
Blumental 1952		40	0.47	80	0.00	49	0.06	56	0.06	40	0.17	55	0.10
Boshniakovich 1969		39	0.49	43	0.00	37	0.12	36	0.35	42	0.13	44	0.21
Brailowsky 1960		57	0.41	63	0.00	65	0.06	59	0.06	57	0.06	63	0.06
Bunin 1987		45	0.45	46	0.00	62	0.10	46	0.10	28	0.26	51	0.16
Bunin 1987b		41	0.47	65	0.00	51	0.08	47	0.08	17	0.42	47	0.18
Chiu 1999		51	0.43	44	0.00	41	0.08	43	0.15	19	0.35	42	0.23
Cohen 1997		75	0.33	5	0.03	69	0.04	68	0.04	40	0.10	68	0.06
Cortot 1951		79	0.32	69	0.00	38	0.08	41	0.20	15	0.50	38	0.32
Csalog 1996		25	0.54	15	0.01	13	0.16	21	0.53	10	0.54	22	0.53
Czerny 1949		17	0.58	3	0.14	3	0.23	12	0.60	19	0.65	11	0.62
Czerny 1990		3	0.63	12	0.01	8	0.16	3	0.75	6	0.78	1	0.76
Duchoud 2007		72	0.35	60	0.00	67	0.06	54	0.06	25	0.44	50	0.16
Ezaki 2006		8	0.62	13	0.01	6	0.18	2	0.75	2	0.72	2	0.73
Falvay 1989		13	0.58	27	0.00	25	0.08	14	0.59	26	0.50	20	0.54
Farrell 1958		30	0.51	16	0.01	17	0.15	19	0.55	7	0.67	12	0.61
Ferenczy 1958		67	0.36	81	0.00	70	0.03	77	0.03	68	0.04	83	0.03
Fliere 1977		24	0.55	54	0.00	28	0.13	24	0.50	34	0.35	31	0.42
Fou 1978		23	0.55	17	0.01	22	0.08	23	0.51	11	0.50	25	0.50
Francois 1956		76	0.33	77	0.00	72	0.03	81	0.03	49	0.06	78	0.04
Friedman 1923		86	0.19	82	0.00	87	0.02	83	0.02	87	0.03	91	0.02
Friedman 1923b		85	0.20	83	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	89	0.02	90	0.02
Friedman 1930		84	0.20	49	0.00	83	0.02	84	0.02	72	0.04	82	0.03
Garcia 2007		44	0.46	35	0.00	34	0.14	32	0.38	8	0.63	26	0.49
Garcia 2007b		28	0.53	33	0.00	21	0.11	22	0.52	5	0.67	14	0.59
Gierzod 1998		16	0.58	38	0.00	27	0.10	18	0.56	40	0.23	35	0.36
Gornostaeva 1994		21	0.56	7	0.02	20	0.10	20	0.55	5	0.63	13	0.59
Groot 1988		56	0.42	64	0.00	52	0.05	67	0.05	58	0.05	73	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		10	0.59	10	0.01	18	0.18	17	0.57	22	0.55	18	0.56
Hatto 1993		50	0.43	55	0.00	54	0.05	66	0.05	55	0.05	74	0.05
Hatto 1997		46	0.45	84	0.00	50	0.08	48	0.08	46	0.07	60	0.07
Horowitz 1949		87	0.18	66	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	84	0.03	87	0.02
Indjic 1988		49	0.44	70	0.00	53	0.04	69	0.04	51	0.05	76	0.04
Kapell 1951		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Kissin 1993		31	0.51	50	0.00	36	0.10	37	0.30	27	0.47	34	0.38
Kushner 1989		9	0.60	6	0.03	5	0.20	11	0.61	14	0.55	16	0.58
Luisada 1991		63	0.38	85	0.00	76	0.03	75	0.03	69	0.04	79	0.03
Lushtak 2004		29	0.52	40	0.00	32	0.14	28	0.46	27	0.42	30	0.44
Malcuzynski 1961		4	0.63	2	0.15	2	0.28	4	0.73	3	0.70	4	0.71
Magaloff 1978		43	0.47	20	0.01	58	0.07	51	0.07	48	0.07	58	0.07
Magin 1975		36	0.49	67	0.00	39	0.07	38	0.25	35	0.22	43	0.23
Michalowski 1933		88	0.15	68	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	46	0.05	81	0.03
Milkina 1970		18	0.57	31	0.00	16	0.12	15	0.58	20	0.48	21	0.53
Mohovich 1999		22	0.56	8	0.01	23	0.08	34	0.37	31	0.35	36	0.36
Moravec 1969		19	0.57	22	0.00	29	0.12	29	0.43	12	0.51	27	0.47
Morozova 2008		34	0.51	51	0.00	30	0.12	26	0.49	13	0.55	24	0.52
Neighaus 1950		78	0.32	86	0.00	81	0.03	74	0.03	69	0.04	86	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		81	0.28	52	0.00	77	0.03	76	0.03	39	0.13	66	0.06
Ohlsson 1999		61	0.40	23	0.00	59	0.06	57	0.06	68	0.04	69	0.05
Osinska 1989		14	0.58	61	0.00	15	0.16	13	0.60	23	0.55	17	0.57
Pachmann 1927		53	0.43	56	0.00	47	0.06	55	0.06	2	0.66	45	0.20
Paderewski 1930		83	0.23	87	0.00	71	0.03	82	0.03	66	0.04	80	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		68	0.36	28	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	50	0.06	75	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		64	0.38	42	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.17	10	0.55	39	0.31
Poblocka 1999		6	0.63	26	0.00	9	0.15	5	0.72	2	0.74	3	0.73
Rabcewiczowa 1932		20	0.57	47	0.00	14	0.13	16	0.58	2	0.59	15	0.58
Rachmaninoff 1923		62	0.38	71	0.00	60	0.06	58	0.06	46	0.07	64	0.06
Rangell 2001		42	0.47	18	0.01	46	0.07	49	0.07	26	0.39	49	0.17
Richter 1976		15	0.58	25	0.00	11	0.13	10	0.65	3	0.72	5	0.68
Rosen 1989		47	0.45	74	0.00	56	0.05	62	0.05	47	0.06	71	0.05
Rosenthal 1930		70	0.36	88	0.00	74	0.04	71	0.04	38	0.22	57	0.09
Rosenthal 1931		69	0.36	45	0.00	75	0.04	70	0.04	42	0.12	59	0.07
Rosenthal 1931b		77	0.32	72	0.00	80	0.04	73	0.04	48	0.05	77	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		59	0.40	39	0.00	63	0.07	50	0.07	31	0.24	52	0.13
Rosenthal 1931d		71	0.35	78	0.00	73	0.03	78	0.03	40	0.17	62	0.07
Rossi 2007		52	0.43	34	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	7	0.54	40	0.24
Rubinstein 1939		27	0.53	41	0.00	31	0.14	25	0.50	12	0.54	23	0.52
Rubinstein 1952		7	0.63	30	0.00	12	0.15	9	0.67	11	0.62	9	0.64
Rubinstein 1966		2	0.64	19	0.01	7	0.15	6	0.71	11	0.66	7	0.68
Schilhawsky 1960		55	0.43	62	0.00	44	0.07	44	0.15	36	0.26	46	0.20
Shebanova 2002		73	0.35	59	0.00	79	0.03	79	0.03	71	0.04	84	0.03
Smith 1975		60	0.40	37	0.00	64	0.05	63	0.05	47	0.08	65	0.06
Sokolov 2002		58	0.41	29	0.00	61	0.06	53	0.06	37	0.26	53	0.12
Sztompka 1959		38	0.49	75	0.00	42	0.08	40	0.20	21	0.53	37	0.33
Tomsic 1995		12	0.58	9	0.01	24	0.10	27	0.48	5	0.63	19	0.55
Uninsky 1932		54	0.43	36	0.00	48	0.06	61	0.06	25	0.49	48	0.17
Uninsky 1971		33	0.51	32	0.00	40	0.07	39	0.20	37	0.30	41	0.24
Wasowski 1980		26	0.54	14	0.01	33	0.13	31	0.41	19	0.49	28	0.45
Zak 1937		35	0.50	24	0.00	35	0.13	35	0.36	25	0.41	33	0.38
Zak 1951		32	0.51	57	0.00	26	0.09	33	0.38	25	0.40	32	0.39
Average		1	0.71	1	0.43	1	0.43	1	0.83	24	0.47	10	0.62
Random 1		89	0.04	89	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	3	0.54	56	0.10
Random 2		90	0.00	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	66	0.03	88	0.02
Random 3		91	-0.01	91	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	3	0.54	61	0.07

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).