Sztompka 1959

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		65	0.33	23	0.00	68	0.04	71	0.04	54	0.05	74	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		24	0.48	7	0.03	8	0.16	16	0.59	23	0.49	12	0.54
Ashkenazy 1981		39	0.41	24	0.00	49	0.05	50	0.05	35	0.21	45	0.10
Bacha 2000		66	0.33	75	0.00	67	0.04	64	0.04	42	0.18	49	0.08
Badura 1965		78	0.29	54	0.00	73	0.05	56	0.05	62	0.05	65	0.05
Barbosa 1983		19	0.49	83	0.00	22	0.18	22	0.53	37	0.22	25	0.34
Biret 1990		54	0.37	29	0.00	36	0.07	37	0.28	61	0.05	42	0.12
Blet 2003		68	0.33	72	0.00	71	0.05	60	0.05	60	0.05	63	0.05
Block 1995		52	0.37	76	0.00	37	0.08	35	0.31	33	0.26	32	0.28
Blumental 1952		46	0.39	17	0.01	38	0.08	40	0.22	60	0.05	43	0.10
Boshniakovich 1969		23	0.48	64	0.00	21	0.13	20	0.55	36	0.22	24	0.35
Brailowsky 1960		47	0.39	61	0.00	42	0.09	38	0.23	38	0.25	34	0.24
Bunin 1987		74	0.30	73	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	85	0.03	84	0.03
Bunin 1987b		79	0.27	53	0.00	82	0.03	85	0.03	73	0.04	80	0.03
Chiu 1999		59	0.36	47	0.00	58	0.04	74	0.04	59	0.05	68	0.04
Cohen 1997		77	0.29	77	0.00	77	0.04	76	0.04	67	0.04	77	0.04
Cortot 1951		31	0.43	21	0.01	18	0.12	24	0.47	5	0.67	10	0.56
Csalog 1996		81	0.25	78	0.00	80	0.03	81	0.03	69	0.04	81	0.03
Czerny 1949		1	0.64	5	0.06	3	0.17	3	0.78	10	0.70	2	0.74
Czerny 1990		3	0.63	1	0.25	1	0.25	2	0.79	14	0.69	3	0.74
Duchoud 2007		86	0.21	89	0.00	86	0.03	86	0.03	72	0.03	82	0.03
Ezaki 2006		34	0.43	84	0.00	47	0.07	46	0.07	55	0.06	56	0.06
Falvay 1989		35	0.43	79	0.00	52	0.04	65	0.04	62	0.04	70	0.04
Farrell 1958		21	0.49	25	0.00	20	0.16	13	0.63	15	0.56	7	0.59
Ferenczy 1958		63	0.34	85	0.00	75	0.05	49	0.05	46	0.08	58	0.06
Fliere 1977		27	0.45	69	0.00	31	0.09	28	0.43	63	0.05	38	0.15
Fou 1978		20	0.49	30	0.00	14	0.14	17	0.57	16	0.45	14	0.51
Francois 1956		44	0.40	36	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.11	26	0.30	36	0.18
Friedman 1923		72	0.32	49	0.00	62	0.04	69	0.04	61	0.05	78	0.04
Friedman 1923b		70	0.32	13	0.01	57	0.05	55	0.05	41	0.18	48	0.09
Friedman 1930		73	0.31	62	0.00	63	0.05	54	0.05	54	0.06	64	0.05
Garcia 2007		71	0.32	80	0.00	66	0.04	66	0.04	41	0.17	52	0.08
Garcia 2007b		61	0.34	35	0.00	56	0.05	57	0.05	59	0.05	66	0.05
Gierzod 1998		7	0.57	20	0.01	11	0.14	15	0.59	35	0.33	18	0.44
Gornostaeva 1994		42	0.40	31	0.00	60	0.04	67	0.04	74	0.03	85	0.03
Groot 1988		82	0.25	55	0.00	70	0.04	73	0.04	81	0.03	87	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		6	0.59	8	0.03	5	0.21	12	0.63	24	0.54	8	0.58
Hatto 1993		49	0.38	33	0.00	23	0.11	29	0.41	41	0.19	33	0.28
Hatto 1997		55	0.37	41	0.00	27	0.10	32	0.37	43	0.10	35	0.19
Horowitz 1949		69	0.32	65	0.00	76	0.05	62	0.05	42	0.14	51	0.08
Indjic 1988		50	0.38	14	0.01	24	0.14	30	0.41	39	0.20	29	0.29
Kapell 1951		22	0.49	39	0.00	25	0.10	21	0.53	40	0.20	26	0.33
Kissin 1993		4	0.61	9	0.02	4	0.20	4	0.76	4	0.77	1	0.76
Kushner 1989		8	0.56	15	0.01	9	0.17	5	0.70	30	0.36	15	0.50
Luisada 1991		57	0.36	48	0.00	72	0.05	63	0.05	58	0.05	59	0.05
Lushtak 2004		30	0.44	45	0.00	32	0.08	33	0.36	47	0.06	39	0.15
Malcuzynski 1961		16	0.53	11	0.01	19	0.12	19	0.56	37	0.29	20	0.40
Magaloff 1978		38	0.41	44	0.00	40	0.07	41	0.21	51	0.07	41	0.12
Magin 1975		41	0.41	19	0.01	48	0.04	75	0.04	81	0.03	79	0.03
Michalowski 1933		85	0.22	56	0.00	83	0.03	82	0.03	44	0.09	62	0.05
Milkina 1970		9	0.55	34	0.00	12	0.16	14	0.62	34	0.32	16	0.45
Mohovich 1999		56	0.37	51	0.00	50	0.04	70	0.04	84	0.03	83	0.03
Moravec 1969		53	0.37	82	0.00	65	0.05	51	0.05	72	0.04	67	0.04
Morozova 2008		18	0.50	27	0.00	28	0.09	26	0.47	32	0.27	23	0.36
Neighaus 1950		13	0.54	12	0.01	17	0.14	7	0.68	1	0.73	4	0.70
Niedzielski 1931		62	0.34	43	0.00	61	0.05	48	0.05	37	0.14	50	0.08
Ohlsson 1999		29	0.45	18	0.01	33	0.09	34	0.34	37	0.26	28	0.30
Osinska 1989		26	0.47	81	0.00	26	0.10	25	0.47	54	0.06	37	0.17
Pachmann 1927		83	0.25	57	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	64	0.03	90	0.02
Paderewski 1930		64	0.34	52	0.00	39	0.06	42	0.20	9	0.53	27	0.33
Perlemuter 1992		40	0.41	63	0.00	55	0.05	58	0.05	32	0.27	40	0.12
Pierdomenico 2008		67	0.33	86	0.00	74	0.04	68	0.04	60	0.05	71	0.04
Poblocka 1999		15	0.53	10	0.02	10	0.15	9	0.66	21	0.47	9	0.56
Rabcewiczowa 1932		43	0.40	58	0.00	41	0.08	39	0.22	67	0.04	47	0.09
Rachmaninoff 1923		76	0.30	37	0.00	69	0.04	79	0.04	55	0.05	69	0.04
Rangell 2001		17	0.51	66	0.00	29	0.10	27	0.44	22	0.44	19	0.44
Richter 1976		5	0.60	3	0.09	6	0.25	8	0.66	11	0.63	5	0.64
Rosen 1989		37	0.42	46	0.00	51	0.05	61	0.05	61	0.04	76	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		75	0.30	59	0.00	78	0.04	77	0.04	55	0.05	75	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		84	0.24	67	0.00	84	0.04	78	0.04	53	0.05	73	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		87	0.19	70	0.00	87	0.03	80	0.03	66	0.04	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		80	0.26	90	0.00	79	0.02	88	0.02	74	0.04	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		88	0.18	87	0.00	88	0.03	84	0.03	73	0.04	86	0.03
Rossi 2007		60	0.35	60	0.00	59	0.04	72	0.04	42	0.11	54	0.07
Rubinstein 1939		25	0.47	71	0.00	30	0.13	23	0.48	32	0.32	21	0.39
Rubinstein 1952		11	0.55	4	0.06	16	0.13	10	0.64	34	0.31	17	0.45
Rubinstein 1966		10	0.55	16	0.01	13	0.17	6	0.69	35	0.39	13	0.52
Schilhawsky 1960		28	0.45	32	0.00	34	0.11	31	0.38	41	0.21	30	0.28
Shebanova 2002		33	0.43	68	0.00	45	0.05	44	0.11	52	0.05	55	0.07
Smith 1975		51	0.38	42	0.00	43	0.05	45	0.10	48	0.08	46	0.09
Sokolov 2002		48	0.39	28	0.00	53	0.05	59	0.05	48	0.06	60	0.05
Sztompka 1959		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Tomsic 1995		58	0.36	50	0.00	64	0.05	53	0.05	70	0.05	61	0.05
Uninsky 1932		32	0.43	40	0.00	35	0.09	36	0.30	26	0.49	22	0.38
Uninsky 1971		14	0.54	38	0.00	15	0.16	11	0.63	11	0.59	6	0.61
Wasowski 1980		12	0.55	6	0.04	7	0.12	18	0.57	11	0.54	11	0.55
Zak 1937		36	0.42	26	0.00	46	0.06	47	0.06	49	0.06	57	0.06
Zak 1951		45	0.39	22	0.01	54	0.05	52	0.05	86	0.03	72	0.04
Average		2	0.63	2	0.23	2	0.35	1	0.81	46	0.10	31	0.28
Random 1		90	0.00	91	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	23	0.34	53	0.08
Random 2		89	0.01	88	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	73	0.03	91	0.02
Random 3		91	0.00	74	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	7	0.47	44	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).