Milkina 1970

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		54	0.48	60	0.00	57	0.06	60	0.06	5	0.57	54	0.18
Anderszewski 2003		21	0.59	8	0.01	8	0.15	10	0.61	9	0.63	12	0.62
Ashkenazy 1981		61	0.45	46	0.00	72	0.04	74	0.04	23	0.34	72	0.12
Bacha 2000		58	0.47	43	0.00	58	0.06	57	0.06	5	0.58	49	0.19
Badura 1965		52	0.49	67	0.00	49	0.07	48	0.07	5	0.57	48	0.20
Barbosa 1983		13	0.60	11	0.01	12	0.14	13	0.59	7	0.67	11	0.63
Biret 1990		25	0.57	6	0.01	10	0.19	12	0.59	2	0.69	10	0.64
Blet 2003		65	0.43	84	0.00	68	0.05	61	0.05	14	0.39	66	0.14
Block 1995		73	0.38	90	0.00	73	0.04	76	0.04	50	0.06	81	0.05
Blumental 1952		27	0.56	38	0.00	33	0.11	31	0.38	12	0.65	28	0.50
Boshniakovich 1969		19	0.59	45	0.00	15	0.12	15	0.57	4	0.67	13	0.62
Brailowsky 1960		53	0.48	41	0.00	56	0.06	56	0.06	34	0.34	65	0.14
Bunin 1987		45	0.51	65	0.00	50	0.06	50	0.06	8	0.57	55	0.18
Bunin 1987b		46	0.51	91	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.11	5	0.62	43	0.26
Chiu 1999		63	0.43	76	0.00	63	0.04	70	0.04	23	0.33	75	0.11
Cohen 1997		64	0.43	25	0.00	60	0.06	52	0.06	2	0.61	50	0.19
Cortot 1951		81	0.33	80	0.00	78	0.04	73	0.04	28	0.35	73	0.12
Csalog 1996		66	0.42	17	0.00	62	0.05	66	0.05	44	0.11	78	0.07
Czerny 1949		4	0.66	3	0.02	4	0.15	11	0.60	6	0.76	5	0.68
Czerny 1990		6	0.64	15	0.00	7	0.17	5	0.66	12	0.71	6	0.68
Duchoud 2007		79	0.35	68	0.00	75	0.05	65	0.05	17	0.52	63	0.16
Ezaki 2006		11	0.61	12	0.00	14	0.15	17	0.55	8	0.61	17	0.58
Falvay 1989		34	0.55	55	0.00	35	0.09	32	0.35	30	0.46	37	0.40
Farrell 1958		48	0.50	40	0.00	32	0.09	33	0.32	11	0.63	32	0.45
Ferenczy 1958		83	0.32	71	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	75	0.03	90	0.02
Fliere 1977		12	0.60	23	0.00	22	0.08	18	0.52	6	0.60	19	0.56
Fou 1978		15	0.60	5	0.01	23	0.10	26	0.42	8	0.55	30	0.48
Francois 1956		51	0.49	56	0.00	52	0.06	55	0.06	2	0.63	51	0.19
Friedman 1923		76	0.36	32	0.00	70	0.03	82	0.03	20	0.47	74	0.12
Friedman 1923b		74	0.38	58	0.00	71	0.04	78	0.04	18	0.47	68	0.14
Friedman 1930		70	0.39	13	0.00	61	0.06	59	0.06	13	0.49	58	0.17
Garcia 2007		72	0.38	61	0.00	65	0.04	77	0.04	17	0.49	67	0.14
Garcia 2007b		56	0.47	49	0.00	25	0.08	36	0.27	11	0.58	38	0.40
Gierzod 1998		3	0.66	2	0.03	5	0.16	9	0.62	10	0.60	14	0.61
Gornostaeva 1994		24	0.57	30	0.00	19	0.08	21	0.48	6	0.63	21	0.55
Groot 1988		38	0.53	72	0.00	39	0.08	41	0.23	7	0.54	41	0.35
Harasiewicz 1955		7	0.64	28	0.00	6	0.14	14	0.58	12	0.62	15	0.60
Hatto 1993		22	0.59	81	0.00	30	0.16	24	0.46	10	0.59	25	0.52
Hatto 1997		18	0.59	77	0.00	29	0.11	23	0.47	9	0.62	22	0.54
Horowitz 1949		75	0.36	36	0.00	77	0.05	67	0.05	25	0.36	70	0.13
Indjic 1988		17	0.59	50	0.00	28	0.07	22	0.47	9	0.64	20	0.55
Kapell 1951		23	0.57	42	0.00	18	0.08	20	0.48	15	0.58	23	0.53
Kissin 1993		42	0.51	37	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.13	28	0.47	44	0.25
Kushner 1989		5	0.65	4	0.02	2	0.30	3	0.69	4	0.71	4	0.70
Luisada 1991		32	0.56	51	0.00	40	0.08	39	0.24	3	0.69	35	0.41
Lushtak 2004		44	0.51	10	0.01	26	0.09	28	0.40	16	0.53	31	0.46
Malcuzynski 1961		16	0.59	47	0.00	17	0.18	16	0.56	11	0.58	18	0.57
Magaloff 1978		35	0.54	21	0.00	37	0.07	38	0.24	5	0.64	39	0.39
Magin 1975		31	0.56	26	0.00	27	0.11	29	0.40	10	0.60	29	0.49
Michalowski 1933		85	0.31	66	0.00	79	0.04	72	0.04	5	0.61	62	0.16
Milkina 1970		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Mohovich 1999		14	0.60	18	0.00	16	0.12	8	0.63	2	0.72	7	0.67
Moravec 1969		39	0.53	33	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	21	0.46	45	0.22
Morozova 2008		9	0.62	19	0.00	11	0.22	4	0.67	2	0.78	2	0.72
Neighaus 1950		82	0.33	85	0.00	82	0.03	83	0.03	56	0.05	84	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		87	0.23	82	0.00	88	0.03	80	0.03	70	0.04	85	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		49	0.50	16	0.00	24	0.07	27	0.41	6	0.61	27	0.50
Osinska 1989		2	0.67	7	0.01	3	0.22	2	0.69	6	0.71	3	0.70
Pachmann 1927		77	0.36	73	0.00	80	0.05	63	0.05	29	0.34	71	0.13
Paderewski 1930		88	0.23	86	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	50	0.05	86	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		62	0.43	69	0.00	74	0.05	62	0.05	14	0.43	64	0.15
Pierdomenico 2008		67	0.42	87	0.00	66	0.05	68	0.05	11	0.55	57	0.17
Poblocka 1999		29	0.56	31	0.00	38	0.07	37	0.26	24	0.46	40	0.35
Rabcewiczowa 1932		59	0.45	57	0.00	53	0.08	46	0.08	28	0.31	59	0.16
Rachmaninoff 1923		71	0.39	62	0.00	69	0.04	79	0.04	44	0.10	79	0.06
Rangell 2001		55	0.47	88	0.00	59	0.06	51	0.06	16	0.52	56	0.18
Richter 1976		47	0.50	89	0.00	46	0.06	53	0.06	20	0.52	53	0.18
Rosen 1989		36	0.54	27	0.00	42	0.08	42	0.16	14	0.54	42	0.29
Rosenthal 1930		78	0.35	59	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	56	0.05	83	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		80	0.34	70	0.00	83	0.03	85	0.03	60	0.04	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.32	52	0.00	84	0.03	81	0.03	68	0.04	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		69	0.39	78	0.00	76	0.04	75	0.04	55	0.07	82	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.30	63	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	62	0.04	88	0.03
Rossi 2007		68	0.41	14	0.00	67	0.04	71	0.04	14	0.45	69	0.13
Rubinstein 1939		26	0.57	39	0.00	20	0.08	25	0.43	6	0.64	24	0.52
Rubinstein 1952		10	0.62	9	0.01	13	0.15	7	0.64	7	0.67	9	0.65
Rubinstein 1966		8	0.63	24	0.00	9	0.19	6	0.65	8	0.68	8	0.66
Schilhawsky 1960		30	0.56	35	0.00	36	0.08	35	0.29	3	0.68	34	0.44
Shebanova 2002		57	0.47	64	0.00	64	0.05	69	0.05	41	0.16	76	0.09
Smith 1975		43	0.51	53	0.00	51	0.08	47	0.08	12	0.54	46	0.21
Sokolov 2002		37	0.53	22	0.00	41	0.09	40	0.24	3	0.69	36	0.41
Sztompka 1959		33	0.55	34	0.00	34	0.09	34	0.32	14	0.62	33	0.45
Tomsic 1995		41	0.51	54	0.00	48	0.06	54	0.06	12	0.55	52	0.18
Uninsky 1932		60	0.45	74	0.00	54	0.07	49	0.07	9	0.65	47	0.21
Uninsky 1971		20	0.59	29	0.00	21	0.09	19	0.50	5	0.70	16	0.59
Wasowski 1980		28	0.56	20	0.00	31	0.13	30	0.39	3	0.65	26	0.50
Zak 1937		50	0.50	75	0.00	55	0.06	58	0.06	22	0.42	60	0.16
Zak 1951		40	0.52	44	0.00	47	0.05	64	0.05	19	0.52	61	0.16
Average		1	0.79	1	0.78	1	0.77	1	0.91	1	0.81	1	0.86
Random 1		90	0.00	79	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	16	0.39	80	0.06
Random 2		89	0.07	48	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	16	0.37	77	0.09
Random 3		91	-0.08	83	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	53	0.04	91	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).