Blet 2003

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		7	0.57	59	0.00	12	0.09	14	0.41	56	0.05	17	0.14
Anderszewski 2003		31	0.51	77	0.00	52	0.05	55	0.05	49	0.05	57	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		63	0.43	48	0.00	63	0.05	60	0.05	87	0.02	83	0.03
Bacha 2000		53	0.46	44	0.00	23	0.07	29	0.27	44	0.10	13	0.16
Badura 1965		39	0.50	20	0.01	50	0.05	57	0.05	45	0.09	46	0.07
Barbosa 1983		43	0.49	22	0.01	41	0.06	41	0.14	68	0.04	45	0.07
Biret 1990		17	0.53	4	0.05	5	0.19	8	0.48	45	0.09	8	0.21
Blet 2003		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Block 1995		60	0.44	11	0.02	13	0.09	34	0.19	57	0.05	34	0.10
Blumental 1952		45	0.49	46	0.00	21	0.08	21	0.33	62	0.04	32	0.11
Boshniakovich 1969		5	0.58	23	0.01	8	0.11	5	0.52	48	0.08	10	0.20
Brailowsky 1960		50	0.47	66	0.00	61	0.04	64	0.04	54	0.06	53	0.05
Bunin 1987		84	0.35	78	0.00	87	0.04	66	0.04	49	0.05	67	0.04
Bunin 1987b		83	0.35	53	0.00	86	0.03	73	0.03	67	0.04	76	0.03
Chiu 1999		71	0.41	71	0.00	69	0.03	70	0.03	72	0.04	72	0.03
Cohen 1997		77	0.40	5	0.04	6	0.10	25	0.30	6	0.49	3	0.38
Cortot 1951		76	0.40	72	0.00	65	0.04	65	0.04	63	0.05	69	0.04
Csalog 1996		37	0.50	2	0.07	7	0.13	9	0.45	21	0.38	2	0.41
Czerny 1949		49	0.47	67	0.00	62	0.06	52	0.06	82	0.03	65	0.04
Czerny 1990		23	0.52	79	0.00	40	0.06	39	0.15	79	0.04	42	0.08
Duchoud 2007		87	0.33	69	0.00	72	0.03	77	0.03	64	0.05	66	0.04
Ezaki 2006		14	0.54	17	0.01	45	0.05	45	0.09	65	0.04	48	0.06
Falvay 1989		59	0.44	86	0.00	78	0.02	86	0.02	64	0.05	74	0.03
Farrell 1958		82	0.37	90	0.00	73	0.03	80	0.03	80	0.04	75	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		36	0.51	38	0.00	19	0.09	33	0.20	35	0.27	7	0.23
Fliere 1977		2	0.64	3	0.07	2	0.34	2	0.67	53	0.06	9	0.20
Fou 1978		4	0.58	9	0.02	4	0.18	4	0.56	45	0.11	5	0.25
Francois 1956		46	0.48	75	0.00	58	0.06	49	0.06	67	0.04	60	0.05
Friedman 1923		64	0.43	34	0.00	71	0.03	79	0.03	73	0.04	88	0.03
Friedman 1923b		62	0.43	49	0.00	66	0.03	69	0.03	71	0.04	84	0.03
Friedman 1930		75	0.41	58	0.00	83	0.03	72	0.03	75	0.04	80	0.03
Garcia 2007		47	0.48	80	0.00	55	0.08	46	0.08	65	0.04	52	0.06
Garcia 2007b		57	0.45	73	0.00	54	0.06	50	0.06	62	0.04	61	0.05
Gierzod 1998		6	0.57	65	0.00	16	0.09	13	0.42	60	0.04	22	0.13
Gornostaeva 1994		33	0.51	41	0.00	49	0.05	56	0.05	69	0.03	68	0.04
Groot 1988		44	0.49	24	0.01	28	0.06	20	0.34	48	0.06	18	0.14
Harasiewicz 1955		10	0.55	19	0.01	38	0.06	38	0.17	81	0.03	47	0.07
Hatto 1993		38	0.50	29	0.00	14	0.08	11	0.44	64	0.04	24	0.13
Hatto 1997		30	0.51	74	0.00	15	0.13	12	0.43	66	0.04	21	0.13
Horowitz 1949		68	0.42	26	0.01	70	0.03	81	0.03	65	0.05	64	0.04
Indjic 1988		27	0.51	13	0.01	9	0.10	10	0.44	55	0.05	15	0.15
Kapell 1951		29	0.51	18	0.01	27	0.06	28	0.28	75	0.04	30	0.11
Kissin 1993		12	0.55	56	0.00	34	0.06	31	0.22	67	0.04	38	0.09
Kushner 1989		11	0.55	50	0.00	33	0.06	27	0.29	66	0.04	29	0.11
Luisada 1991		3	0.63	6	0.02	3	0.28	3	0.64	19	0.37	1	0.49
Lushtak 2004		19	0.53	57	0.00	24	0.07	19	0.35	54	0.05	23	0.13
Malcuzynski 1961		80	0.38	25	0.01	84	0.03	67	0.03	69	0.04	77	0.03
Magaloff 1978		67	0.42	87	0.00	77	0.02	87	0.02	88	0.02	90	0.02
Magin 1975		25	0.52	32	0.00	48	0.07	48	0.07	75	0.03	54	0.05
Michalowski 1933		51	0.47	12	0.01	57	0.06	53	0.06	39	0.21	31	0.11
Milkina 1970		8	0.56	35	0.00	11	0.08	7	0.49	61	0.05	14	0.16
Mohovich 1999		15	0.53	10	0.02	10	0.08	6	0.49	50	0.08	11	0.20
Moravec 1969		69	0.42	91	0.00	80	0.02	85	0.02	70	0.03	89	0.02
Morozova 2008		41	0.50	45	0.00	47	0.06	51	0.06	66	0.04	58	0.05
Neighaus 1950		26	0.51	47	0.00	18	0.08	15	0.40	55	0.05	19	0.14
Niedzielski 1931		34	0.51	21	0.01	29	0.05	37	0.17	58	0.05	35	0.09
Ohlsson 1999		54	0.46	27	0.00	42	0.06	43	0.11	63	0.05	44	0.07
Osinska 1989		16	0.53	61	0.00	31	0.05	22	0.32	68	0.04	28	0.11
Pachmann 1927		88	0.31	88	0.00	88	0.03	68	0.03	80	0.03	79	0.03
Paderewski 1930		74	0.41	82	0.00	68	0.03	74	0.03	65	0.04	78	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		18	0.53	15	0.01	20	0.08	17	0.39	34	0.21	4	0.29
Pierdomenico 2008		85	0.35	51	0.00	85	0.03	76	0.03	64	0.05	62	0.04
Poblocka 1999		20	0.52	63	0.00	30	0.05	23	0.31	63	0.05	26	0.12
Rabcewiczowa 1932		61	0.44	68	0.00	35	0.06	35	0.19	60	0.04	36	0.09
Rachmaninoff 1923		66	0.42	81	0.00	82	0.03	71	0.03	79	0.04	73	0.03
Rangell 2001		86	0.33	28	0.00	74	0.02	82	0.02	72	0.04	85	0.03
Richter 1976		52	0.47	8	0.02	46	0.05	58	0.05	56	0.05	55	0.05
Rosen 1989		13	0.54	64	0.00	25	0.07	18	0.36	52	0.06	16	0.15
Rosenthal 1930		70	0.42	39	0.00	75	0.02	88	0.02	59	0.04	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		81	0.38	30	0.00	81	0.03	78	0.03	46	0.08	56	0.05
Rosenthal 1931b		78	0.39	54	0.00	79	0.02	84	0.02	62	0.05	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		73	0.41	60	0.00	76	0.02	83	0.02	51	0.06	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		79	0.38	33	0.00	64	0.04	63	0.04	40	0.19	39	0.09
Rossi 2007		72	0.41	55	0.00	67	0.03	75	0.03	66	0.04	71	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		55	0.45	43	0.00	56	0.05	54	0.05	82	0.03	63	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		56	0.45	76	0.00	51	0.05	61	0.05	74	0.04	70	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		40	0.50	83	0.00	39	0.06	36	0.18	47	0.08	27	0.12
Schilhawsky 1960		28	0.51	16	0.01	44	0.04	44	0.10	64	0.04	50	0.06
Shebanova 2002		48	0.48	52	0.00	53	0.05	59	0.05	47	0.07	51	0.06
Smith 1975		24	0.52	31	0.00	43	0.05	42	0.11	73	0.04	43	0.07
Sokolov 2002		65	0.43	36	0.00	26	0.05	40	0.15	66	0.04	40	0.08
Sztompka 1959		32	0.51	7	0.02	22	0.07	26	0.30	56	0.06	20	0.13
Tomsic 1995		58	0.45	62	0.00	60	0.05	62	0.05	53	0.07	49	0.06
Uninsky 1932		42	0.50	84	0.00	59	0.07	47	0.07	81	0.03	59	0.05
Uninsky 1971		9	0.55	14	0.01	17	0.08	16	0.39	51	0.07	12	0.17
Wasowski 1980		21	0.52	37	0.00	32	0.06	24	0.30	61	0.05	25	0.12
Zak 1937		22	0.52	42	0.00	36	0.07	30	0.22	79	0.04	37	0.09
Zak 1951		35	0.51	40	0.00	37	0.08	32	0.20	70	0.05	33	0.10
Average		1	0.67	1	0.45	1	0.44	1	0.73	54	0.07	6	0.23
Random 1		89	-0.05	85	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	21	0.30	41	0.08
Random 2		91	-0.13	89	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	83	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		90	-0.08	70	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	63	0.04	82	0.03

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).