Niedzielski 1931

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