Afanassiev 2001

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		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Anderszewski 2003		47	0.59	89	0.00	59	0.05	62	0.05	61	0.04	83	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		24	0.66	40	0.00	22	0.12	24	0.44	9	0.52	18	0.48
Bacha 2000		66	0.51	26	0.00	63	0.05	53	0.05	27	0.26	60	0.11
Badura 1965		30	0.64	5	0.02	35	0.07	37	0.25	8	0.58	34	0.38
Barbosa 1983		83	0.44	13	0.01	71	0.04	71	0.04	64	0.05	81	0.04
Biret 1990		32	0.64	7	0.02	31	0.09	27	0.42	23	0.38	32	0.40
Blet 2003		52	0.57	58	0.00	54	0.05	56	0.05	14	0.41	52	0.14
Block 1995		72	0.49	69	0.00	64	0.05	57	0.05	71	0.04	86	0.04
Blumental 1952		33	0.64	11	0.01	13	0.09	25	0.42	11	0.46	25	0.44
Boshniakovich 1969		17	0.67	51	0.00	23	0.15	28	0.40	24	0.47	26	0.43
Brailowsky 1960		68	0.51	75	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	46	0.10	76	0.05
Bunin 1987		85	0.42	86	0.00	85	0.02	89	0.02	35	0.23	74	0.07
Bunin 1987b		86	0.41	87	0.00	86	0.03	76	0.03	37	0.25	66	0.09
Chiu 1999		49	0.58	41	0.00	58	0.05	58	0.05	22	0.29	57	0.12
Cohen 1997		87	0.39	70	0.00	88	0.04	69	0.04	55	0.05	87	0.04
Cortot 1951		74	0.48	33	0.00	77	0.03	85	0.03	36	0.25	70	0.09
Csalog 1996		79	0.45	42	0.00	72	0.04	66	0.04	65	0.04	82	0.04
Czerny 1949		26	0.66	61	0.00	19	0.10	17	0.48	24	0.49	17	0.48
Czerny 1990		22	0.66	62	0.00	26	0.07	26	0.42	27	0.39	31	0.40
Duchoud 2007		71	0.50	22	0.00	61	0.05	52	0.05	8	0.49	48	0.16
Ezaki 2006		25	0.66	28	0.00	34	0.06	38	0.21	24	0.39	39	0.29
Falvay 1989		70	0.50	34	0.00	79	0.03	82	0.03	50	0.08	77	0.05
Farrell 1958		55	0.56	24	0.00	51	0.04	65	0.04	41	0.22	65	0.09
Ferenczy 1958		63	0.53	46	0.00	62	0.04	68	0.04	28	0.35	58	0.12
Fliere 1977		4	0.74	36	0.00	7	0.16	8	0.58	16	0.48	13	0.53
Fou 1978		20	0.67	19	0.00	28	0.10	30	0.38	17	0.47	28	0.42
Francois 1956		56	0.55	63	0.00	57	0.05	59	0.05	22	0.47	50	0.15
Friedman 1923		35	0.63	38	0.00	38	0.06	36	0.26	10	0.54	35	0.37
Friedman 1923b		31	0.64	59	0.00	32	0.07	32	0.35	9	0.58	23	0.45
Friedman 1930		39	0.62	64	0.00	41	0.07	40	0.19	14	0.52	38	0.31
Garcia 2007		58	0.55	88	0.00	60	0.07	47	0.07	27	0.41	47	0.17
Garcia 2007b		50	0.58	76	0.00	47	0.07	48	0.07	26	0.38	49	0.16
Gierzod 1998		3	0.74	2	0.06	2	0.40	2	0.69	9	0.65	2	0.67
Gornostaeva 1994		57	0.55	77	0.00	56	0.05	64	0.05	37	0.16	69	0.09
Groot 1988		54	0.56	16	0.01	49	0.05	54	0.05	17	0.38	54	0.14
Harasiewicz 1955		10	0.69	52	0.00	21	0.10	18	0.48	27	0.48	19	0.48
Hatto 1993		19	0.67	49	0.00	16	0.16	16	0.48	18	0.39	27	0.43
Hatto 1997		15	0.68	72	0.00	18	0.11	20	0.46	19	0.39	30	0.42
Horowitz 1949		44	0.59	27	0.00	46	0.07	49	0.07	3	0.60	44	0.20
Indjic 1988		11	0.68	80	0.00	15	0.11	15	0.49	16	0.43	20	0.46
Kapell 1951		59	0.54	84	0.00	55	0.06	51	0.06	53	0.06	75	0.06
Kissin 1993		2	0.75	14	0.01	3	0.26	3	0.63	6	0.69	3	0.66
Kushner 1989		36	0.62	71	0.00	48	0.08	46	0.08	55	0.06	73	0.07
Luisada 1991		6	0.72	15	0.01	12	0.20	10	0.57	4	0.69	4	0.63
Lushtak 2004		64	0.53	90	0.00	69	0.04	67	0.04	71	0.04	85	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		61	0.54	25	0.00	53	0.05	55	0.05	31	0.18	67	0.09
Magaloff 1978		53	0.57	17	0.00	50	0.06	50	0.06	21	0.34	51	0.14
Magin 1975		8	0.71	8	0.02	4	0.11	5	0.62	5	0.61	7	0.61
Michalowski 1933		42	0.60	39	0.00	37	0.07	35	0.27	3	0.66	29	0.42
Milkina 1970		18	0.67	43	0.00	20	0.10	14	0.50	24	0.47	16	0.48
Mohovich 1999		43	0.59	29	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.13	32	0.37	42	0.22
Moravec 1969		77	0.47	48	0.00	80	0.03	77	0.03	46	0.06	78	0.04
Morozova 2008		34	0.64	37	0.00	29	0.10	31	0.35	20	0.42	33	0.38
Neighaus 1950		27	0.66	54	0.00	27	0.08	21	0.45	14	0.54	14	0.49
Niedzielski 1931		41	0.60	67	0.00	36	0.07	33	0.27	9	0.49	36	0.36
Ohlsson 1999		16	0.67	9	0.01	10	0.15	9	0.58	5	0.62	9	0.60
Osinska 1989		37	0.62	23	0.00	33	0.07	34	0.27	42	0.14	45	0.19
Pachmann 1927		75	0.48	74	0.00	87	0.03	79	0.03	35	0.24	72	0.08
Paderewski 1930		65	0.51	65	0.00	74	0.04	75	0.04	22	0.40	56	0.13
Perlemuter 1992		38	0.62	47	0.00	42	0.07	41	0.15	8	0.57	40	0.29
Pierdomenico 2008		76	0.48	60	0.00	66	0.04	74	0.04	24	0.40	55	0.13
Poblocka 1999		21	0.66	44	0.00	17	0.09	19	0.47	16	0.50	15	0.48
Rabcewiczowa 1932		51	0.57	78	0.00	43	0.07	42	0.14	27	0.28	43	0.20
Rachmaninoff 1923		14	0.68	4	0.03	8	0.15	7	0.59	2	0.65	5	0.62
Rangell 2001		88	0.38	81	0.00	84	0.02	86	0.02	69	0.04	89	0.03
Richter 1976		40	0.62	53	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	26	0.48	41	0.24
Rosen 1989		12	0.68	18	0.00	14	0.09	13	0.53	7	0.61	11	0.57
Rosenthal 1930		69	0.50	66	0.00	67	0.04	70	0.04	16	0.52	53	0.14
Rosenthal 1931		82	0.44	57	0.00	82	0.04	72	0.04	29	0.27	63	0.10
Rosenthal 1931b		80	0.44	82	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	23	0.36	64	0.10
Rosenthal 1931c		78	0.46	85	0.00	73	0.03	78	0.03	28	0.37	62	0.11
Rosenthal 1931d		81	0.44	55	0.00	76	0.03	83	0.03	21	0.47	59	0.12
Rossi 2007		67	0.51	45	0.00	75	0.03	81	0.03	37	0.24	71	0.08
Rubinstein 1939		60	0.54	30	0.00	68	0.05	60	0.05	62	0.04	79	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		73	0.49	10	0.01	65	0.04	73	0.04	61	0.05	88	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		62	0.54	79	0.00	70	0.05	63	0.05	75	0.04	84	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		5	0.72	31	0.00	5	0.14	6	0.61	5	0.61	8	0.61
Shebanova 2002		7	0.71	12	0.01	6	0.17	4	0.63	7	0.61	6	0.62
Smith 1975		48	0.58	21	0.00	52	0.05	61	0.05	34	0.23	61	0.11
Sokolov 2002		45	0.59	20	0.00	40	0.06	39	0.20	9	0.51	37	0.32
Sztompka 1959		9	0.70	6	0.02	11	0.17	11	0.57	15	0.57	10	0.57
Tomsic 1995		84	0.43	56	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	50	0.08	80	0.04
Uninsky 1932		29	0.65	68	0.00	30	0.10	29	0.39	13	0.52	22	0.45
Uninsky 1971		13	0.68	3	0.04	9	0.16	12	0.54	16	0.58	12	0.56
Wasowski 1980		46	0.59	50	0.00	39	0.06	43	0.13	35	0.26	46	0.18
Zak 1937		23	0.66	35	0.00	25	0.08	23	0.45	21	0.44	24	0.44
Zak 1951		28	0.65	32	0.00	24	0.06	22	0.45	17	0.46	21	0.45
Average		1	0.82	1	0.65	1	0.64	1	0.84	10	0.59	1	0.70
Random 1		91	-0.13	73	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	68	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.01	83	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	11	0.43	68	0.09
Random 3		90	-0.10	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	67	0.04	91	0.02

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).