Bacha 2000

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

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).