Uninsky 1932

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		56	0.30	59	0.00	78	0.03	74	0.03	47	0.05	68	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		18	0.44	11	0.01	15	0.16	12	0.63	41	0.22	14	0.37
Ashkenazy 1981		45	0.33	52	0.00	59	0.04	62	0.04	69	0.03	83	0.03
Bacha 2000		59	0.30	61	0.00	53	0.06	51	0.06	38	0.23	34	0.12
Badura 1965		65	0.27	32	0.00	40	0.06	41	0.13	80	0.03	53	0.06
Barbosa 1983		17	0.45	9	0.01	10	0.13	8	0.66	44	0.14	18	0.30
Biret 1990		29	0.39	29	0.00	19	0.09	24	0.50	44	0.08	25	0.20
Blet 2003		73	0.25	84	0.00	84	0.04	59	0.04	76	0.03	76	0.03
Block 1995		46	0.33	12	0.01	43	0.06	44	0.11	69	0.04	47	0.07
Blumental 1952		43	0.34	39	0.00	54	0.08	46	0.08	68	0.05	54	0.06
Boshniakovich 1969		26	0.40	30	0.00	11	0.11	15	0.61	41	0.13	19	0.28
Brailowsky 1960		31	0.37	53	0.00	38	0.08	38	0.22	49	0.07	36	0.12
Bunin 1987		52	0.31	33	0.00	68	0.05	53	0.05	68	0.04	69	0.04
Bunin 1987b		62	0.28	81	0.00	69	0.05	54	0.05	68	0.04	65	0.04
Chiu 1999		81	0.22	78	0.00	79	0.03	81	0.03	84	0.02	88	0.02
Cohen 1997		49	0.32	68	0.00	57	0.03	71	0.03	68	0.04	84	0.03
Cortot 1951		53	0.31	44	0.00	65	0.03	73	0.03	34	0.30	40	0.09
Csalog 1996		54	0.31	36	0.00	48	0.06	49	0.06	66	0.04	59	0.05
Czerny 1949		11	0.46	6	0.01	12	0.11	14	0.62	35	0.41	6	0.50
Czerny 1990		13	0.46	24	0.00	14	0.14	6	0.67	45	0.14	17	0.31
Duchoud 2007		87	0.13	42	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	70	0.04	79	0.03
Ezaki 2006		20	0.44	69	0.00	24	0.14	22	0.52	47	0.07	26	0.19
Falvay 1989		30	0.39	75	0.00	37	0.08	32	0.29	82	0.04	37	0.11
Farrell 1958		64	0.27	54	0.00	50	0.04	58	0.04	69	0.04	64	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		50	0.32	37	0.00	63	0.04	65	0.04	55	0.06	60	0.05
Fliere 1977		19	0.44	48	0.00	21	0.11	19	0.57	70	0.05	28	0.17
Fou 1978		9	0.46	15	0.01	6	0.11	10	0.65	25	0.34	7	0.47
Francois 1956		68	0.26	45	0.00	64	0.04	70	0.04	70	0.04	71	0.04
Friedman 1923		86	0.15	85	0.00	87	0.02	84	0.02	84	0.03	91	0.02
Friedman 1923b		85	0.16	82	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	86	0.03	90	0.02
Friedman 1930		88	0.10	86	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	68	0.04	77	0.03
Garcia 2007		84	0.17	83	0.00	81	0.03	78	0.03	75	0.04	80	0.03
Garcia 2007b		72	0.25	70	0.00	56	0.04	68	0.04	73	0.04	72	0.04
Gierzod 1998		12	0.46	4	0.03	4	0.16	16	0.61	38	0.27	11	0.41
Gornostaeva 1994		36	0.36	35	0.00	46	0.06	50	0.06	69	0.04	62	0.05
Groot 1988		51	0.31	63	0.00	62	0.04	60	0.04	84	0.03	85	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		3	0.51	1	0.34	1	0.33	2	0.75	23	0.54	2	0.64
Hatto 1993		67	0.27	87	0.00	32	0.07	35	0.23	77	0.03	42	0.08
Hatto 1997		66	0.27	88	0.00	33	0.11	36	0.23	73	0.04	38	0.10
Horowitz 1949		60	0.30	55	0.00	75	0.04	64	0.04	60	0.05	66	0.04
Indjic 1988		69	0.26	89	0.00	36	0.07	39	0.16	83	0.03	44	0.07
Kapell 1951		23	0.43	50	0.00	27	0.10	25	0.49	61	0.06	29	0.17
Kissin 1993		14	0.45	26	0.00	9	0.11	11	0.64	23	0.51	4	0.57
Kushner 1989		32	0.37	71	0.00	30	0.12	29	0.38	63	0.05	32	0.14
Luisada 1991		37	0.36	17	0.01	55	0.05	52	0.05	73	0.04	63	0.04
Lushtak 2004		35	0.36	16	0.01	28	0.11	27	0.43	63	0.04	33	0.13
Malcuzynski 1961		4	0.48	13	0.01	5	0.11	4	0.71	38	0.28	10	0.45
Magaloff 1978		7	0.47	10	0.01	7	0.09	5	0.70	18	0.48	3	0.58
Magin 1975		33	0.37	43	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.11	86	0.03	50	0.06
Michalowski 1933		80	0.23	23	0.00	77	0.03	79	0.03	42	0.11	52	0.06
Milkina 1970		15	0.45	25	0.00	17	0.13	9	0.65	49	0.07	23	0.21
Mohovich 1999		34	0.37	64	0.00	47	0.07	47	0.07	66	0.04	61	0.05
Moravec 1969		22	0.43	7	0.01	20	0.10	20	0.54	36	0.20	16	0.33
Morozova 2008		6	0.47	18	0.01	13	0.17	7	0.67	20	0.49	5	0.57
Neighaus 1950		75	0.24	72	0.00	83	0.04	69	0.04	86	0.02	86	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		76	0.24	58	0.00	72	0.03	82	0.03	75	0.04	74	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		71	0.25	76	0.00	67	0.04	63	0.04	73	0.04	67	0.04
Osinska 1989		40	0.35	73	0.00	35	0.06	34	0.27	64	0.05	35	0.12
Pachmann 1927		82	0.20	90	0.00	76	0.02	85	0.02	53	0.05	75	0.03
Paderewski 1930		83	0.18	65	0.00	71	0.03	77	0.03	38	0.16	43	0.07
Perlemuter 1992		77	0.24	41	0.00	80	0.02	83	0.02	72	0.03	87	0.02
Pierdomenico 2008		74	0.24	46	0.00	82	0.03	76	0.03	76	0.03	73	0.03
Poblocka 1999		25	0.41	38	0.00	34	0.06	33	0.28	55	0.08	30	0.15
Rabcewiczowa 1932		24	0.42	14	0.01	23	0.13	23	0.51	44	0.11	21	0.24
Rachmaninoff 1923		27	0.40	21	0.01	29	0.12	30	0.37	59	0.05	31	0.14
Rangell 2001		28	0.39	47	0.00	31	0.07	31	0.36	41	0.17	20	0.25
Richter 1976		10	0.46	5	0.02	16	0.12	21	0.53	25	0.42	8	0.47
Rosen 1989		78	0.24	77	0.00	73	0.03	75	0.03	79	0.03	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		63	0.27	66	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	72	0.04	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		61	0.29	79	0.00	58	0.04	67	0.04	39	0.14	45	0.07
Rosenthal 1931b		70	0.26	56	0.00	60	0.04	61	0.04	43	0.14	49	0.07
Rosenthal 1931c		58	0.30	40	0.00	61	0.04	66	0.04	45	0.10	55	0.06
Rosenthal 1931d		79	0.23	60	0.00	70	0.04	57	0.04	61	0.04	70	0.04
Rossi 2007		42	0.34	49	0.00	39	0.07	37	0.23	32	0.24	22	0.23
Rubinstein 1939		16	0.45	22	0.01	22	0.13	18	0.57	29	0.35	9	0.45
Rubinstein 1952		5	0.47	31	0.00	18	0.16	13	0.63	48	0.07	24	0.21
Rubinstein 1966		8	0.47	20	0.01	8	0.10	17	0.59	42	0.23	15	0.37
Schilhawsky 1960		38	0.35	57	0.00	42	0.06	42	0.13	59	0.04	46	0.07
Shebanova 2002		57	0.30	67	0.00	66	0.03	72	0.03	80	0.04	78	0.03
Smith 1975		41	0.34	19	0.01	41	0.06	40	0.14	57	0.05	41	0.08
Sokolov 2002		39	0.35	28	0.00	25	0.13	28	0.42	29	0.39	12	0.40
Sztompka 1959		21	0.43	8	0.01	26	0.11	26	0.49	36	0.30	13	0.38
Tomsic 1995		44	0.33	62	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	74	0.04	51	0.06
Uninsky 1932		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Uninsky 1971		1	0.56	2	0.25	2	0.30	3	0.74	9	0.62	1	0.68
Wasowski 1980		47	0.33	80	0.00	49	0.05	56	0.05	69	0.05	56	0.05
Zak 1937		48	0.32	91	0.00	51	0.05	55	0.05	57	0.05	57	0.05
Zak 1951		55	0.30	74	0.00	52	0.07	48	0.07	77	0.03	58	0.05
Average		2	0.53	3	0.16	3	0.35	1	0.77	69	0.04	27	0.18
Random 1		91	-0.07	27	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	62	0.03	89	0.02
Random 2		89	0.09	34	0.00	89	0.02	87	0.02	3	0.52	39	0.10
Random 3		90	-0.04	51	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	27	0.25	48	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).