Zak 1951

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	0.39	53	0.00	77	0.06	50	0.06	46	0.07	68	0.06
Anderszewski 2003		41	0.45	54	0.00	56	0.04	65	0.04	55	0.06	70	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		40	0.46	38	0.00	65	0.05	52	0.05	31	0.26	55	0.11
Bacha 2000		73	0.36	55	0.00	79	0.04	72	0.04	72	0.03	82	0.03
Badura 1965		67	0.38	56	0.00	36	0.05	35	0.17	36	0.19	35	0.18
Barbosa 1983		13	0.55	57	0.00	21	0.15	17	0.53	38	0.21	22	0.33
Biret 1990		4	0.63	39	0.00	3	0.30	5	0.74	4	0.63	4	0.68
Blet 2003		65	0.39	58	0.00	63	0.06	48	0.06	42	0.13	61	0.09
Block 1995		45	0.43	59	0.00	54	0.05	56	0.05	38	0.20	57	0.10
Blumental 1952		29	0.50	23	0.00	34	0.05	37	0.15	47	0.08	54	0.11
Boshniakovich 1969		27	0.50	40	0.00	11	0.11	15	0.58	19	0.39	18	0.48
Brailowsky 1960		66	0.39	10	0.00	74	0.04	66	0.04	67	0.05	76	0.04
Bunin 1987		51	0.42	41	0.00	48	0.04	69	0.04	29	0.25	58	0.10
Bunin 1987b		55	0.41	60	0.00	49	0.04	64	0.04	26	0.31	51	0.11
Chiu 1999		35	0.48	61	0.00	35	0.05	36	0.16	10	0.45	26	0.27
Cohen 1997		77	0.33	42	0.00	72	0.04	67	0.04	32	0.17	63	0.08
Cortot 1951		88	0.21	62	0.00	88	0.03	87	0.03	66	0.03	88	0.03
Csalog 1996		17	0.54	4	0.00	17	0.12	16	0.55	12	0.51	13	0.53
Czerny 1949		34	0.48	7	0.00	28	0.09	30	0.29	40	0.32	24	0.30
Czerny 1990		14	0.55	20	0.00	20	0.15	14	0.58	38	0.40	19	0.48
Duchoud 2007		78	0.32	43	0.00	67	0.03	81	0.03	24	0.45	48	0.12
Ezaki 2006		6	0.62	44	0.00	6	0.17	6	0.71	16	0.53	8	0.61
Falvay 1989		5	0.63	3	0.00	5	0.27	4	0.74	8	0.66	2	0.70
Farrell 1958		50	0.42	19	0.00	38	0.05	38	0.11	40	0.24	37	0.16
Ferenczy 1958		39	0.46	63	0.00	43	0.04	40	0.10	32	0.34	34	0.18
Fliere 1977		16	0.54	24	0.00	27	0.11	26	0.36	66	0.05	43	0.13
Fou 1978		20	0.52	14	0.00	30	0.10	28	0.34	39	0.17	28	0.24
Francois 1956		69	0.38	64	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.07	19	0.38	39	0.16
Friedman 1923		64	0.39	13	0.00	42	0.04	39	0.10	18	0.51	30	0.23
Friedman 1923b		60	0.40	65	0.00	44	0.05	41	0.10	13	0.53	29	0.23
Friedman 1930		23	0.51	25	0.00	14	0.16	11	0.61	3	0.74	5	0.67
Garcia 2007		79	0.32	66	0.00	75	0.05	55	0.05	47	0.06	72	0.05
Garcia 2007b		62	0.39	45	0.00	60	0.05	53	0.05	58	0.05	74	0.05
Gierzod 1998		7	0.60	32	0.00	7	0.15	8	0.67	22	0.47	9	0.56
Gornostaeva 1994		15	0.54	33	0.00	16	0.12	20	0.51	17	0.49	15	0.50
Groot 1988		54	0.42	67	0.00	52	0.05	60	0.05	56	0.05	73	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		12	0.55	46	0.00	19	0.16	12	0.59	33	0.41	17	0.49
Hatto 1993		30	0.50	34	0.00	33	0.06	33	0.27	49	0.05	49	0.12
Hatto 1997		22	0.51	26	0.00	31	0.10	27	0.34	47	0.06	42	0.14
Horowitz 1949		85	0.25	47	0.00	87	0.03	83	0.03	77	0.03	84	0.03
Indjic 1988		28	0.50	68	0.00	32	0.07	31	0.29	48	0.05	47	0.12
Kapell 1951		25	0.51	69	0.00	18	0.12	25	0.40	33	0.38	21	0.39
Kissin 1993		31	0.49	70	0.00	53	0.05	57	0.05	43	0.23	53	0.11
Kushner 1989		9	0.58	27	0.00	8	0.16	7	0.67	23	0.43	11	0.54
Luisada 1991		44	0.43	71	0.00	61	0.05	51	0.05	42	0.18	59	0.09
Lushtak 2004		26	0.51	72	0.00	13	0.15	18	0.53	23	0.46	16	0.49
Malcuzynski 1961		33	0.48	16	0.00	25	0.11	22	0.45	45	0.15	27	0.26
Magaloff 1978		57	0.40	28	0.00	76	0.04	61	0.04	78	0.03	83	0.03
Magin 1975		11	0.56	35	0.00	10	0.11	10	0.64	9	0.61	6	0.62
Michalowski 1933		86	0.23	73	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	16	0.44	52	0.11
Milkina 1970		18	0.52	21	0.00	22	0.16	19	0.52	64	0.05	38	0.16
Mohovich 1999		19	0.52	74	0.00	24	0.10	23	0.42	36	0.21	25	0.30
Moravec 1969		56	0.41	75	0.00	73	0.03	78	0.03	61	0.05	75	0.04
Morozova 2008		71	0.37	8	0.00	64	0.06	47	0.06	49	0.07	67	0.06
Neighaus 1950		84	0.30	76	0.00	81	0.02	88	0.02	71	0.04	87	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		74	0.35	77	0.00	66	0.04	73	0.04	26	0.30	50	0.11
Ohlsson 1999		32	0.49	48	0.00	12	0.12	21	0.50	10	0.56	12	0.53
Osinska 1989		3	0.64	2	0.00	4	0.42	3	0.76	14	0.63	3	0.69
Pachmann 1927		72	0.36	49	0.00	70	0.03	85	0.03	17	0.47	46	0.12
Paderewski 1930		87	0.21	78	0.00	80	0.03	82	0.03	54	0.05	77	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		68	0.38	79	0.00	62	0.05	59	0.05	25	0.35	44	0.13
Pierdomenico 2008		70	0.37	80	0.00	59	0.05	54	0.05	25	0.44	41	0.15
Poblocka 1999		24	0.51	81	0.00	29	0.09	32	0.28	48	0.11	33	0.18
Rabcewiczowa 1932		58	0.40	50	0.00	47	0.04	63	0.04	49	0.06	69	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		47	0.43	17	0.00	51	0.04	62	0.04	32	0.27	56	0.10
Rangell 2001		49	0.43	18	0.00	41	0.04	44	0.08	28	0.37	36	0.17
Richter 1976		52	0.42	11	0.00	69	0.04	71	0.04	66	0.03	85	0.03
Rosen 1989		21	0.52	36	0.00	26	0.11	24	0.41	20	0.43	20	0.42
Rosenthal 1930		82	0.31	82	0.00	86	0.03	80	0.03	67	0.04	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		80	0.32	6	0.00	84	0.04	75	0.04	71	0.04	79	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		75	0.34	5	0.00	83	0.04	76	0.04	69	0.04	81	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		81	0.31	9	0.00	85	0.03	79	0.03	76	0.03	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		76	0.33	83	0.00	78	0.04	70	0.04	39	0.17	64	0.08
Rossi 2007		59	0.40	22	0.00	40	0.04	43	0.09	16	0.44	32	0.20
Rubinstein 1939		36	0.47	51	0.00	46	0.04	74	0.04	37	0.22	60	0.09
Rubinstein 1952		10	0.57	84	0.00	15	0.13	13	0.59	26	0.44	14	0.51
Rubinstein 1966		8	0.58	85	0.00	9	0.18	9	0.66	27	0.46	10	0.55
Schilhawsky 1960		48	0.43	29	0.00	50	0.04	68	0.04	63	0.04	80	0.04
Shebanova 2002		38	0.46	86	0.00	23	0.11	29	0.31	24	0.34	23	0.32
Smith 1975		37	0.47	52	0.00	37	0.07	34	0.17	38	0.25	31	0.21
Sokolov 2002		42	0.45	87	0.00	57	0.06	49	0.06	30	0.36	40	0.15
Sztompka 1959		61	0.39	88	0.00	68	0.03	86	0.03	52	0.05	78	0.04
Tomsic 1995		43	0.44	30	0.00	39	0.04	42	0.09	40	0.17	45	0.12
Uninsky 1932		83	0.30	89	0.00	71	0.03	77	0.03	48	0.07	71	0.05
Uninsky 1971		46	0.43	15	0.00	58	0.06	46	0.06	51	0.06	66	0.06
Wasowski 1980		53	0.42	31	0.00	55	0.05	58	0.05	48	0.07	65	0.06
Zak 1937		1	0.96	1	0.99	1	0.98	1	0.99	1	0.99	1	0.99
Zak 1951		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Average		2	0.72	12	0.00	2	0.57	2	0.86	27	0.45	7	0.62
Random 1		91	-0.09	37	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	72	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	0.00	90	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	61	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.02	91	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	15	0.35	62	0.08

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).