Richter 1976

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		49	0.41	62	0.00	63	0.03	67	0.03	49	0.05	73	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		17	0.53	8	0.02	6	0.12	10	0.67	21	0.50	8	0.58
Ashkenazy 1981		25	0.49	14	0.01	35	0.07	41	0.18	22	0.35	30	0.25
Bacha 2000		62	0.37	50	0.00	73	0.03	78	0.03	52	0.04	78	0.03
Badura 1965		61	0.37	83	0.00	59	0.03	65	0.03	50	0.07	60	0.05
Barbosa 1983		9	0.56	28	0.00	15	0.17	13	0.60	30	0.34	17	0.45
Biret 1990		28	0.46	47	0.00	39	0.07	38	0.25	56	0.05	45	0.11
Blet 2003		57	0.39	37	0.00	53	0.04	53	0.04	35	0.17	53	0.08
Block 1995		45	0.42	74	0.00	45	0.07	44	0.14	40	0.15	40	0.14
Blumental 1952		54	0.39	51	0.00	48	0.05	49	0.05	73	0.04	76	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		22	0.50	84	0.00	18	0.12	17	0.59	25	0.33	18	0.44
Brailowsky 1960		43	0.43	63	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.16	43	0.15	37	0.15
Bunin 1987		71	0.33	64	0.00	66	0.04	64	0.04	69	0.04	77	0.04
Bunin 1987b		73	0.32	56	0.00	57	0.04	63	0.04	56	0.05	68	0.04
Chiu 1999		59	0.38	34	0.00	56	0.03	69	0.03	46	0.07	57	0.05
Cohen 1997		80	0.27	77	0.00	83	0.03	81	0.03	78	0.03	85	0.03
Cortot 1951		72	0.33	23	0.00	23	0.12	33	0.29	27	0.37	24	0.33
Csalog 1996		48	0.42	45	0.00	44	0.05	45	0.12	54	0.05	52	0.08
Czerny 1949		8	0.57	4	0.07	4	0.18	8	0.67	21	0.64	5	0.65
Czerny 1990		6	0.58	5	0.05	3	0.22	2	0.72	17	0.67	2	0.69
Duchoud 2007		78	0.29	65	0.00	81	0.03	85	0.03	53	0.06	74	0.04
Ezaki 2006		4	0.59	40	0.00	11	0.12	5	0.69	21	0.51	7	0.59
Falvay 1989		20	0.51	42	0.00	32	0.10	27	0.38	48	0.06	38	0.15
Farrell 1958		33	0.46	22	0.00	24	0.15	22	0.51	23	0.41	16	0.46
Ferenczy 1958		69	0.34	86	0.00	82	0.02	87	0.02	65	0.05	83	0.03
Fliere 1977		21	0.51	59	0.00	26	0.10	23	0.44	72	0.05	36	0.15
Fou 1978		19	0.52	38	0.00	25	0.10	21	0.51	35	0.24	22	0.35
Francois 1956		74	0.31	78	0.00	80	0.03	76	0.03	66	0.04	89	0.03
Friedman 1923		86	0.24	21	0.00	60	0.03	71	0.03	44	0.09	61	0.05
Friedman 1923b		85	0.25	20	0.01	54	0.04	54	0.04	44	0.11	55	0.07
Friedman 1930		82	0.26	27	0.00	69	0.03	70	0.03	74	0.04	81	0.03
Garcia 2007		75	0.31	79	0.00	70	0.03	73	0.03	66	0.04	84	0.03
Garcia 2007b		65	0.35	60	0.00	47	0.06	47	0.06	54	0.06	56	0.06
Gierzod 1998		5	0.59	39	0.00	12	0.15	7	0.68	31	0.34	13	0.48
Gornostaeva 1994		37	0.45	69	0.00	41	0.08	39	0.23	44	0.08	41	0.14
Groot 1988		52	0.39	30	0.00	37	0.07	37	0.26	74	0.04	49	0.10
Harasiewicz 1955		12	0.55	18	0.01	13	0.13	19	0.56	34	0.41	14	0.48
Hatto 1993		68	0.34	87	0.00	67	0.04	55	0.04	79	0.03	86	0.03
Hatto 1997		66	0.35	57	0.00	71	0.03	74	0.03	83	0.03	82	0.03
Horowitz 1949		84	0.25	70	0.00	85	0.03	84	0.03	76	0.03	80	0.03
Indjic 1988		67	0.34	80	0.00	72	0.04	62	0.04	74	0.04	69	0.04
Kapell 1951		7	0.58	2	0.20	2	0.28	3	0.72	10	0.65	3	0.68
Kissin 1993		2	0.60	15	0.01	7	0.13	4	0.70	7	0.72	1	0.71
Kushner 1989		10	0.56	10	0.02	8	0.11	9	0.67	32	0.35	11	0.48
Luisada 1991		50	0.40	71	0.00	65	0.04	58	0.04	62	0.04	62	0.04
Lushtak 2004		34	0.46	17	0.01	34	0.09	30	0.33	44	0.13	31	0.21
Malcuzynski 1961		18	0.52	19	0.01	14	0.15	16	0.59	30	0.39	12	0.48
Magaloff 1978		26	0.47	75	0.00	28	0.09	26	0.41	41	0.18	27	0.27
Magin 1975		24	0.50	12	0.01	10	0.11	24	0.42	30	0.34	21	0.38
Michalowski 1933		81	0.26	54	0.00	78	0.04	52	0.04	8	0.53	39	0.15
Milkina 1970		23	0.50	52	0.00	21	0.13	20	0.52	53	0.06	33	0.18
Mohovich 1999		39	0.45	76	0.00	40	0.06	40	0.20	74	0.04	51	0.09
Moravec 1969		35	0.46	58	0.00	31	0.08	31	0.31	52	0.07	35	0.15
Morozova 2008		16	0.53	9	0.02	16	0.15	6	0.69	6	0.61	4	0.65
Neighaus 1950		47	0.42	41	0.00	52	0.04	57	0.04	25	0.36	44	0.12
Niedzielski 1931		70	0.33	43	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	43	0.10	58	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		38	0.45	29	0.00	46	0.07	46	0.07	46	0.08	54	0.07
Osinska 1989		27	0.47	61	0.00	33	0.10	32	0.30	56	0.06	42	0.13
Pachmann 1927		51	0.40	53	0.00	50	0.05	50	0.05	14	0.51	34	0.16
Paderewski 1930		76	0.30	48	0.00	76	0.03	75	0.03	27	0.27	50	0.09
Perlemuter 1992		83	0.25	88	0.00	88	0.03	83	0.03	82	0.02	90	0.02
Pierdomenico 2008		63	0.36	72	0.00	77	0.04	59	0.04	64	0.04	66	0.04
Poblocka 1999		15	0.54	7	0.02	9	0.11	12	0.62	25	0.45	10	0.53
Rabcewiczowa 1932		60	0.38	66	0.00	49	0.06	48	0.06	54	0.05	59	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		56	0.39	67	0.00	55	0.04	61	0.04	52	0.05	65	0.04
Rangell 2001		31	0.46	25	0.00	30	0.11	36	0.26	32	0.32	26	0.29
Richter 1976		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosen 1989		40	0.44	31	0.00	51	0.05	51	0.05	77	0.03	75	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		58	0.39	55	0.00	64	0.03	72	0.03	33	0.31	46	0.10
Rosenthal 1931		77	0.29	73	0.00	79	0.03	77	0.03	51	0.05	70	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		87	0.24	89	0.00	86	0.02	89	0.02	76	0.04	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		79	0.28	90	0.00	84	0.03	82	0.03	72	0.04	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		88	0.22	81	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	80	0.03	91	0.02
Rossi 2007		64	0.35	85	0.00	75	0.03	79	0.03	47	0.06	64	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		36	0.45	68	0.00	42	0.05	42	0.17	45	0.09	43	0.12
Rubinstein 1952		14	0.54	46	0.00	20	0.19	18	0.58	32	0.32	19	0.43
Rubinstein 1966		13	0.54	44	0.00	19	0.15	15	0.59	38	0.28	20	0.41
Schilhawsky 1960		41	0.44	6	0.03	22	0.12	28	0.38	33	0.31	23	0.34
Shebanova 2002		53	0.39	82	0.00	68	0.04	60	0.04	65	0.04	71	0.04
Smith 1975		32	0.46	35	0.00	38	0.05	34	0.29	31	0.32	25	0.30
Sokolov 2002		55	0.39	49	0.00	61	0.03	68	0.03	54	0.06	63	0.04
Sztompka 1959		3	0.60	3	0.14	5	0.24	11	0.63	8	0.66	6	0.64
Tomsic 1995		30	0.46	11	0.02	36	0.08	35	0.28	34	0.25	28	0.26
Uninsky 1932		29	0.46	16	0.01	27	0.09	25	0.42	21	0.53	15	0.47
Uninsky 1971		11	0.55	13	0.01	17	0.13	14	0.60	23	0.48	9	0.54
Wasowski 1980		42	0.44	36	0.00	29	0.09	29	0.37	45	0.10	32	0.19
Zak 1937		44	0.43	32	0.00	62	0.04	56	0.04	72	0.04	67	0.04
Zak 1951		46	0.42	26	0.00	58	0.03	66	0.03	71	0.04	79	0.03
Average		1	0.66	1	0.29	1	0.29	1	0.79	48	0.08	29	0.25
Random 1		90	0.00	33	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	9	0.47	47	0.10
Random 2		89	0.00	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	38	0.14	72	0.04
Random 3		91	-0.02	24	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	5	0.53	48	0.10

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).