Rachmaninoff 1923

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		39	0.39	24	0.00	36	0.07	37	0.23	16	0.43	28	0.31
Anderszewski 2003		20	0.46	52	0.00	28	0.14	28	0.36	58	0.06	37	0.15
Ashkenazy 1981		48	0.37	7	0.03	31	0.08	38	0.22	12	0.45	29	0.31
Bacha 2000		52	0.36	31	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.11	36	0.25	34	0.17
Badura 1965		57	0.33	11	0.01	72	0.05	63	0.05	72	0.03	75	0.04
Barbosa 1983		9	0.50	45	0.00	16	0.11	10	0.54	39	0.20	27	0.33
Biret 1990		3	0.56	6	0.04	4	0.21	3	0.73	8	0.58	4	0.65
Blet 2003		65	0.32	76	0.00	60	0.03	75	0.03	74	0.03	84	0.03
Block 1995		12	0.49	72	0.00	20	0.09	11	0.52	11	0.55	8	0.53
Blumental 1952		5	0.56	17	0.01	6	0.27	5	0.67	9	0.68	3	0.67
Boshniakovich 1969		69	0.30	82	0.00	61	0.03	77	0.03	86	0.03	87	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		1	0.62	1	0.31	1	0.31	2	0.74	6	0.71	2	0.72
Bunin 1987		67	0.31	33	0.00	74	0.05	62	0.05	43	0.11	51	0.07
Bunin 1987b		75	0.27	64	0.00	76	0.05	56	0.05	67	0.04	71	0.04
Chiu 1999		72	0.29	77	0.00	66	0.04	65	0.04	66	0.05	69	0.04
Cohen 1997		74	0.28	78	0.00	62	0.03	78	0.03	42	0.09	66	0.05
Cortot 1951		44	0.39	9	0.02	40	0.06	41	0.13	18	0.46	32	0.24
Csalog 1996		49	0.37	83	0.00	59	0.04	71	0.04	49	0.06	63	0.05
Czerny 1949		60	0.33	40	0.00	48	0.06	50	0.06	67	0.04	65	0.05
Czerny 1990		43	0.39	86	0.00	29	0.09	30	0.31	51	0.06	40	0.14
Duchoud 2007		85	0.12	73	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	66	0.04	85	0.03
Ezaki 2006		10	0.50	13	0.01	21	0.09	27	0.39	59	0.05	38	0.14
Falvay 1989		30	0.41	46	0.00	41	0.06	40	0.17	67	0.04	46	0.08
Farrell 1958		62	0.32	87	0.00	58	0.03	74	0.03	46	0.13	53	0.06
Ferenczy 1958		33	0.40	25	0.00	53	0.06	47	0.06	43	0.13	45	0.09
Fliere 1977		6	0.54	12	0.01	7	0.22	8	0.56	26	0.40	12	0.47
Fou 1978		22	0.45	51	0.00	25	0.08	16	0.49	33	0.25	23	0.35
Francois 1956		68	0.30	29	0.00	63	0.03	76	0.03	44	0.13	58	0.06
Friedman 1923		53	0.35	32	0.00	39	0.07	34	0.25	22	0.45	25	0.34
Friedman 1923b		59	0.33	36	0.00	38	0.06	35	0.24	24	0.40	30	0.31
Friedman 1930		63	0.32	48	0.00	42	0.06	42	0.12	37	0.22	36	0.16
Garcia 2007		82	0.17	88	0.00	84	0.03	81	0.03	78	0.03	86	0.03
Garcia 2007b		73	0.29	89	0.00	77	0.06	49	0.06	70	0.04	68	0.05
Gierzod 1998		28	0.42	54	0.00	27	0.13	24	0.43	49	0.07	35	0.17
Gornostaeva 1994		54	0.35	41	0.00	65	0.04	66	0.04	52	0.05	78	0.04
Groot 1988		7	0.54	3	0.12	5	0.25	6	0.62	10	0.53	7	0.57
Harasiewicz 1955		25	0.44	56	0.00	34	0.07	39	0.21	52	0.06	42	0.11
Hatto 1993		15	0.48	18	0.01	12	0.10	12	0.52	28	0.36	16	0.43
Hatto 1997		19	0.47	57	0.00	18	0.10	21	0.45	35	0.31	22	0.37
Horowitz 1949		51	0.36	58	0.00	32	0.06	31	0.28	8	0.55	21	0.39
Indjic 1988		18	0.47	50	0.00	17	0.07	18	0.47	28	0.34	20	0.40
Kapell 1951		45	0.38	84	0.00	52	0.07	46	0.07	58	0.06	54	0.06
Kissin 1993		77	0.25	42	0.00	80	0.02	84	0.02	82	0.03	91	0.02
Kushner 1989		66	0.31	79	0.00	75	0.05	53	0.05	66	0.04	70	0.04
Luisada 1991		27	0.42	22	0.00	35	0.07	36	0.23	40	0.19	33	0.21
Lushtak 2004		41	0.39	26	0.00	54	0.05	57	0.05	71	0.04	76	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		24	0.44	10	0.01	14	0.08	26	0.39	41	0.19	31	0.27
Magaloff 1978		8	0.51	21	0.00	15	0.08	9	0.55	24	0.41	13	0.47
Magin 1975		50	0.37	80	0.00	57	0.04	72	0.04	83	0.03	81	0.03
Michalowski 1933		79	0.21	65	0.00	68	0.04	70	0.04	39	0.13	47	0.07
Milkina 1970		42	0.39	34	0.00	45	0.05	44	0.10	79	0.04	55	0.06
Mohovich 1999		11	0.50	8	0.02	19	0.08	17	0.49	35	0.24	24	0.34
Moravec 1969		46	0.38	71	0.00	51	0.05	51	0.05	51	0.08	52	0.06
Morozova 2008		71	0.29	74	0.00	71	0.05	61	0.05	69	0.05	64	0.05
Neighaus 1950		76	0.25	47	0.00	67	0.04	73	0.04	51	0.06	67	0.05
Niedzielski 1931		38	0.39	53	0.00	33	0.08	29	0.32	4	0.49	19	0.40
Ohlsson 1999		78	0.23	62	0.00	78	0.05	60	0.05	78	0.03	74	0.04
Osinska 1989		55	0.34	81	0.00	70	0.04	64	0.04	82	0.03	79	0.03
Pachmann 1927		87	0.10	85	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	79	0.03	90	0.02
Paderewski 1930		88	0.08	61	0.00	79	0.03	79	0.03	62	0.04	83	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		86	0.12	66	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	89	0.02	89	0.02
Pierdomenico 2008		83	0.17	69	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	45	0.09	61	0.05
Poblocka 1999		16	0.47	16	0.01	10	0.11	20	0.45	39	0.24	26	0.33
Rabcewiczowa 1932		31	0.41	5	0.08	8	0.18	14	0.51	18	0.41	14	0.46
Rachmaninoff 1923		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rangell 2001		81	0.19	75	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	73	0.04	88	0.03
Richter 1976		37	0.39	39	0.00	49	0.05	52	0.05	61	0.04	72	0.04
Rosen 1989		64	0.32	67	0.00	64	0.04	69	0.04	54	0.04	77	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		4	0.56	4	0.10	2	0.22	4	0.73	6	0.77	1	0.75
Rosenthal 1931		29	0.41	19	0.00	26	0.10	25	0.43	7	0.61	9	0.51
Rosenthal 1931b		34	0.40	15	0.01	13	0.09	23	0.44	7	0.60	11	0.51
Rosenthal 1931c		17	0.47	20	0.00	11	0.09	7	0.56	13	0.61	5	0.58
Rosenthal 1931d		23	0.45	59	0.00	24	0.09	15	0.50	7	0.66	6	0.57
Rossi 2007		84	0.16	55	0.00	82	0.03	80	0.03	70	0.04	80	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		47	0.38	28	0.00	47	0.05	54	0.05	41	0.15	44	0.09
Rubinstein 1952		40	0.39	14	0.01	30	0.08	33	0.26	50	0.07	41	0.13
Rubinstein 1966		36	0.39	90	0.00	44	0.05	45	0.10	60	0.05	48	0.07
Schilhawsky 1960		13	0.48	23	0.00	22	0.08	13	0.52	16	0.50	10	0.51
Shebanova 2002		61	0.32	70	0.00	56	0.04	67	0.04	45	0.12	49	0.07
Smith 1975		14	0.48	49	0.00	9	0.10	19	0.47	23	0.42	15	0.44
Sokolov 2002		56	0.33	63	0.00	69	0.04	68	0.04	52	0.06	60	0.05
Sztompka 1959		70	0.30	43	0.00	55	0.05	55	0.05	79	0.04	73	0.04
Tomsic 1995		80	0.20	68	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	79	0.03	82	0.03
Uninsky 1932		35	0.40	27	0.00	50	0.05	59	0.05	30	0.37	39	0.14
Uninsky 1971		21	0.46	38	0.00	23	0.07	22	0.44	26	0.40	17	0.42
Wasowski 1980		58	0.33	60	0.00	73	0.05	58	0.05	70	0.05	59	0.05
Zak 1937		32	0.41	35	0.00	46	0.06	48	0.06	59	0.04	62	0.05
Zak 1951		26	0.43	37	0.00	37	0.07	32	0.27	62	0.04	43	0.10
Average		2	0.59	2	0.15	3	0.24	1	0.77	38	0.22	18	0.41
Random 1		91	0.00	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	18	0.38	57	0.06
Random 2		89	0.06	30	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	18	0.35	56	0.06
Random 3		90	0.05	44	0.00	88	0.01	89	0.01	4	0.54	50	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).