Malcuzynski 1961

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		77	0.33	54	0.00	87	0.02	83	0.02	82	0.03	91	0.02
Anderszewski 2003		10	0.57	4	0.03	4	0.22	6	0.64	10	0.63	6	0.63
Ashkenazy 1981		70	0.35	89	0.00	76	0.04	68	0.04	77	0.03	85	0.03
Bacha 2000		50	0.45	48	0.00	57	0.04	70	0.04	9	0.51	56	0.14
Badura 1965		60	0.41	60	0.00	40	0.08	43	0.16	16	0.45	43	0.27
Barbosa 1983		13	0.56	44	0.00	16	0.13	18	0.52	22	0.48	25	0.50
Biret 1990		38	0.49	49	0.00	39	0.09	35	0.30	36	0.28	40	0.29
Blet 2003		76	0.33	61	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	71	0.03	89	0.02
Block 1995		58	0.41	55	0.00	54	0.05	59	0.05	30	0.31	58	0.12
Blumental 1952		45	0.46	10	0.01	48	0.07	51	0.07	36	0.28	57	0.14
Boshniakovich 1969		8	0.59	18	0.00	9	0.12	9	0.62	5	0.65	7	0.63
Brailowsky 1960		65	0.39	62	0.00	69	0.03	73	0.03	56	0.06	77	0.04
Bunin 1987		28	0.51	31	0.00	32	0.06	26	0.42	3	0.70	18	0.54
Bunin 1987b		30	0.50	23	0.00	34	0.07	28	0.41	3	0.71	17	0.54
Chiu 1999		67	0.37	45	0.00	71	0.04	65	0.04	48	0.06	75	0.05
Cohen 1997		82	0.29	72	0.00	79	0.02	80	0.02	65	0.04	86	0.03
Cortot 1951		44	0.47	9	0.01	30	0.08	40	0.23	2	0.73	35	0.41
Csalog 1996		61	0.40	37	0.00	55	0.05	60	0.05	40	0.16	65	0.09
Czerny 1949		2	0.70	2	0.37	2	0.50	2	0.72	3	0.79	1	0.75
Czerny 1990		5	0.61	14	0.00	7	0.11	8	0.63	16	0.68	5	0.65
Duchoud 2007		72	0.34	52	0.00	64	0.08	47	0.08	11	0.55	46	0.21
Ezaki 2006		4	0.61	38	0.00	6	0.21	5	0.64	6	0.67	4	0.65
Falvay 1989		32	0.50	35	0.00	38	0.09	31	0.38	37	0.36	39	0.37
Farrell 1958		16	0.55	27	0.00	20	0.14	19	0.52	6	0.71	10	0.61
Ferenczy 1958		66	0.37	47	0.00	72	0.04	67	0.04	69	0.04	78	0.04
Fliere 1977		14	0.56	17	0.00	13	0.12	16	0.53	19	0.47	23	0.50
Fou 1978		49	0.45	76	0.00	52	0.05	61	0.05	45	0.10	71	0.07
Francois 1956		63	0.39	20	0.00	65	0.08	49	0.08	24	0.35	51	0.17
Friedman 1923		83	0.29	84	0.00	81	0.03	78	0.03	46	0.07	76	0.05
Friedman 1923b		85	0.27	77	0.00	82	0.02	84	0.02	76	0.04	87	0.03
Friedman 1930		84	0.27	53	0.00	80	0.02	82	0.02	81	0.03	90	0.02
Garcia 2007		47	0.46	65	0.00	42	0.10	39	0.27	4	0.68	31	0.43
Garcia 2007b		54	0.45	36	0.00	43	0.08	44	0.16	16	0.51	41	0.29
Gierzod 1998		18	0.54	42	0.00	22	0.08	22	0.48	32	0.34	37	0.40
Gornostaeva 1994		15	0.55	56	0.00	19	0.13	13	0.56	3	0.66	12	0.61
Groot 1988		59	0.41	57	0.00	51	0.06	58	0.06	42	0.11	68	0.08
Harasiewicz 1955		6	0.60	13	0.01	10	0.15	14	0.55	20	0.57	16	0.56
Hatto 1993		35	0.50	85	0.00	36	0.07	32	0.38	23	0.44	34	0.41
Hatto 1997		33	0.50	68	0.00	33	0.07	29	0.40	20	0.45	33	0.42
Horowitz 1949		87	0.26	22	0.00	88	0.02	81	0.02	70	0.04	84	0.03
Indjic 1988		31	0.50	86	0.00	25	0.09	24	0.43	22	0.48	28	0.45
Kapell 1951		3	0.63	12	0.01	3	0.20	3	0.70	4	0.73	3	0.71
Kissin 1993		42	0.48	43	0.00	27	0.07	33	0.37	24	0.51	30	0.43
Kushner 1989		11	0.57	11	0.01	5	0.19	7	0.63	12	0.59	11	0.61
Luisada 1991		78	0.33	87	0.00	86	0.02	85	0.02	81	0.03	88	0.02
Lushtak 2004		34	0.50	69	0.00	31	0.09	34	0.37	28	0.41	38	0.39
Malcuzynski 1961		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Magaloff 1978		37	0.49	66	0.00	46	0.06	54	0.06	29	0.36	54	0.15
Magin 1975		56	0.44	80	0.00	63	0.09	46	0.09	52	0.05	70	0.07
Michalowski 1933		88	0.23	81	0.00	84	0.02	89	0.02	34	0.20	73	0.06
Milkina 1970		7	0.59	28	0.00	8	0.12	11	0.58	16	0.56	13	0.57
Mohovich 1999		22	0.52	32	0.00	18	0.11	17	0.52	15	0.54	21	0.53
Moravec 1969		24	0.52	19	0.00	24	0.08	23	0.45	9	0.59	22	0.52
Morozova 2008		25	0.52	25	0.00	26	0.06	20	0.49	10	0.58	20	0.53
Neighaus 1950		75	0.33	50	0.00	83	0.03	79	0.03	52	0.05	81	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		64	0.39	39	0.00	70	0.04	69	0.04	24	0.32	59	0.11
Ohlsson 1999		52	0.45	51	0.00	58	0.05	63	0.05	43	0.15	64	0.09
Osinska 1989		17	0.55	6	0.02	14	0.14	10	0.59	24	0.53	15	0.56
Pachmann 1927		69	0.36	73	0.00	59	0.06	52	0.06	10	0.55	48	0.18
Paderewski 1930		74	0.33	90	0.00	67	0.03	72	0.03	16	0.39	60	0.11
Perlemuter 1992		81	0.30	74	0.00	78	0.02	86	0.02	49	0.06	82	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		62	0.40	21	0.00	62	0.07	50	0.07	9	0.57	47	0.20
Poblocka 1999		41	0.48	78	0.00	44	0.08	42	0.17	36	0.25	45	0.21
Rabcewiczowa 1932		27	0.52	33	0.00	28	0.06	27	0.42	7	0.51	27	0.46
Rachmaninoff 1923		55	0.44	5	0.02	17	0.11	41	0.19	26	0.39	42	0.27
Rangell 2001		23	0.52	30	0.00	23	0.07	21	0.48	3	0.68	14	0.57
Richter 1976		21	0.52	63	0.00	21	0.08	30	0.39	16	0.59	26	0.48
Rosen 1989		48	0.46	58	0.00	53	0.04	66	0.04	34	0.28	62	0.11
Rosenthal 1930		73	0.34	82	0.00	75	0.03	77	0.03	46	0.06	80	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		80	0.31	83	0.00	74	0.03	76	0.03	41	0.13	74	0.06
Rosenthal 1931b		86	0.26	70	0.00	73	0.03	71	0.03	38	0.20	69	0.08
Rosenthal 1931c		68	0.37	15	0.00	66	0.04	64	0.04	36	0.21	67	0.09
Rosenthal 1931d		71	0.34	64	0.00	68	0.03	74	0.03	34	0.28	66	0.09
Rossi 2007		57	0.42	40	0.00	61	0.06	57	0.06	10	0.50	50	0.17
Rubinstein 1939		9	0.58	8	0.01	11	0.17	12	0.58	5	0.67	8	0.62
Rubinstein 1952		19	0.53	7	0.02	15	0.13	15	0.55	18	0.54	19	0.54
Rubinstein 1966		12	0.57	41	0.00	12	0.19	4	0.65	20	0.59	9	0.62
Schilhawsky 1960		26	0.52	26	0.00	37	0.08	36	0.30	9	0.58	32	0.42
Shebanova 2002		53	0.45	24	0.00	56	0.05	62	0.05	34	0.25	61	0.11
Smith 1975		79	0.32	88	0.00	77	0.03	75	0.03	83	0.03	83	0.03
Sokolov 2002		51	0.45	34	0.00	60	0.06	55	0.06	26	0.42	52	0.16
Sztompka 1959		20	0.53	3	0.03	29	0.06	37	0.29	19	0.56	36	0.40
Tomsic 1995		29	0.51	71	0.00	35	0.07	25	0.43	9	0.58	24	0.50
Uninsky 1932		43	0.48	16	0.00	41	0.08	38	0.28	4	0.71	29	0.45
Uninsky 1971		40	0.48	59	0.00	49	0.06	53	0.06	28	0.38	55	0.15
Wasowski 1980		36	0.49	29	0.00	47	0.08	48	0.08	29	0.37	49	0.17
Zak 1937		46	0.46	91	0.00	50	0.06	56	0.06	26	0.41	53	0.16
Zak 1951		39	0.48	67	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.15	22	0.45	44	0.26
Average		1	0.72	1	0.41	1	0.41	1	0.86	17	0.64	2	0.74
Random 1		91	0.00	46	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	10	0.46	72	0.07
Random 2		89	0.04	75	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	32	0.20	79	0.04
Random 3		90	0.03	79	0.00	89	0.02	87	0.02	2	0.59	63	0.11

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).