Block 1995

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		40	0.49	46	0.00	47	0.04	71	0.04	57	0.05	73	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		2	0.64	5	0.05	3	0.20	4	0.67	13	0.51	2	0.58
Ashkenazy 1981		64	0.41	85	0.00	61	0.05	59	0.05	58	0.05	59	0.05
Bacha 2000		67	0.40	50	0.00	59	0.04	78	0.04	66	0.04	60	0.04
Badura 1965		41	0.49	42	0.00	63	0.06	51	0.06	47	0.08	50	0.07
Barbosa 1983		46	0.47	15	0.01	17	0.07	23	0.34	26	0.44	10	0.39
Biret 1990		29	0.51	32	0.00	20	0.09	20	0.37	51	0.05	33	0.14
Blet 2003		56	0.44	13	0.01	54	0.05	57	0.05	34	0.19	40	0.10
Block 1995		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Blumental 1952		69	0.40	23	0.00	33	0.06	37	0.18	59	0.04	47	0.08
Boshniakovich 1969		21	0.52	73	0.00	25	0.06	25	0.31	45	0.10	25	0.18
Brailowsky 1960		12	0.56	10	0.01	19	0.08	15	0.47	9	0.66	4	0.56
Bunin 1987		75	0.37	68	0.00	76	0.04	65	0.04	59	0.05	76	0.04
Bunin 1987b		78	0.35	70	0.00	77	0.04	73	0.04	61	0.04	67	0.04
Chiu 1999		33	0.50	33	0.00	35	0.06	36	0.19	37	0.15	26	0.17
Cohen 1997		88	0.17	58	0.00	88	0.04	79	0.04	87	0.02	84	0.03
Cortot 1951		61	0.43	24	0.00	51	0.04	75	0.04	67	0.04	77	0.04
Csalog 1996		70	0.39	43	0.00	58	0.04	74	0.04	34	0.18	46	0.08
Czerny 1949		53	0.46	80	0.00	70	0.05	62	0.05	73	0.04	72	0.04
Czerny 1990		27	0.52	49	0.00	39	0.06	38	0.17	70	0.04	48	0.08
Duchoud 2007		77	0.35	86	0.00	66	0.04	68	0.04	57	0.05	74	0.04
Ezaki 2006		5	0.61	3	0.10	6	0.16	7	0.57	28	0.34	8	0.44
Falvay 1989		14	0.54	6	0.04	15	0.10	16	0.46	24	0.46	5	0.46
Farrell 1958		44	0.48	72	0.00	36	0.08	30	0.22	57	0.06	37	0.11
Ferenczy 1958		24	0.52	26	0.00	41	0.05	42	0.13	16	0.49	19	0.25
Fliere 1977		7	0.57	8	0.03	5	0.18	5	0.61	41	0.17	15	0.32
Fou 1978		10	0.56	20	0.00	12	0.16	6	0.60	29	0.27	9	0.40
Francois 1956		79	0.34	74	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	85	0.03	88	0.03
Friedman 1923		45	0.48	44	0.00	56	0.04	70	0.04	54	0.05	79	0.04
Friedman 1923b		47	0.47	81	0.00	57	0.06	50	0.06	56	0.06	53	0.06
Friedman 1930		58	0.43	71	0.00	74	0.07	46	0.07	63	0.05	52	0.06
Garcia 2007		63	0.41	82	0.00	71	0.04	64	0.04	42	0.19	44	0.09
Garcia 2007b		68	0.40	36	0.00	72	0.05	52	0.05	85	0.03	78	0.04
Gierzod 1998		35	0.50	48	0.00	16	0.09	24	0.32	52	0.06	32	0.14
Gornostaeva 1994		18	0.53	34	0.00	22	0.11	21	0.36	28	0.31	14	0.33
Groot 1988		16	0.54	7	0.03	8	0.12	14	0.49	13	0.43	6	0.46
Harasiewicz 1955		4	0.62	14	0.01	7	0.14	10	0.53	45	0.11	20	0.24
Hatto 1993		52	0.46	28	0.00	43	0.05	44	0.11	56	0.05	51	0.07
Hatto 1997		50	0.47	39	0.00	53	0.06	49	0.06	63	0.04	58	0.05
Horowitz 1949		36	0.50	65	0.00	48	0.04	72	0.04	32	0.38	35	0.12
Indjic 1988		48	0.47	75	0.00	52	0.04	76	0.04	62	0.05	68	0.04
Kapell 1951		25	0.52	9	0.03	14	0.17	9	0.54	29	0.26	11	0.37
Kissin 1993		28	0.51	37	0.00	44	0.04	43	0.11	70	0.04	49	0.07
Kushner 1989		31	0.50	54	0.00	29	0.07	29	0.24	54	0.06	34	0.12
Luisada 1991		26	0.52	45	0.00	37	0.08	33	0.21	57	0.05	38	0.10
Lushtak 2004		30	0.51	66	0.00	42	0.06	40	0.13	48	0.07	41	0.10
Malcuzynski 1961		49	0.47	59	0.00	46	0.05	61	0.05	47	0.06	56	0.05
Magaloff 1978		65	0.41	51	0.00	75	0.06	48	0.06	85	0.02	81	0.03
Magin 1975		39	0.49	76	0.00	32	0.07	32	0.22	68	0.04	43	0.09
Michalowski 1933		83	0.31	87	0.00	80	0.03	84	0.03	74	0.03	83	0.03
Milkina 1970		13	0.55	88	0.00	21	0.09	22	0.34	46	0.07	29	0.15
Mohovich 1999		9	0.57	4	0.08	4	0.20	3	0.72	10	0.65	1	0.68
Moravec 1969		76	0.36	52	0.00	79	0.03	81	0.03	69	0.04	80	0.03
Morozova 2008		42	0.49	89	0.00	49	0.05	53	0.05	67	0.04	70	0.04
Neighaus 1950		32	0.50	12	0.01	28	0.06	31	0.22	38	0.16	22	0.19
Niedzielski 1931		60	0.43	55	0.00	69	0.04	69	0.04	55	0.05	65	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		55	0.44	47	0.00	31	0.06	35	0.19	53	0.05	39	0.10
Osinska 1989		6	0.58	60	0.00	13	0.17	11	0.52	60	0.06	23	0.18
Pachmann 1927		73	0.38	62	0.00	83	0.03	86	0.03	58	0.04	82	0.03
Paderewski 1930		87	0.22	90	0.00	87	0.03	83	0.03	88	0.02	89	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		62	0.43	31	0.00	68	0.05	54	0.05	79	0.03	61	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		82	0.32	77	0.00	65	0.04	66	0.04	62	0.05	64	0.04
Poblocka 1999		3	0.63	2	0.13	2	0.17	2	0.73	23	0.45	3	0.57
Rabcewiczowa 1932		59	0.43	17	0.01	55	0.04	67	0.04	59	0.04	66	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		37	0.49	61	0.00	50	0.05	55	0.05	65	0.04	63	0.04
Rangell 2001		54	0.44	11	0.01	24	0.07	26	0.28	18	0.43	13	0.35
Richter 1976		19	0.52	67	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	39	0.25	31	0.14
Rosen 1989		34	0.50	21	0.00	18	0.08	18	0.41	37	0.19	16	0.28
Rosenthal 1930		80	0.33	78	0.00	82	0.02	87	0.02	82	0.03	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		81	0.32	29	0.00	81	0.04	77	0.04	59	0.05	69	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		85	0.28	30	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	65	0.04	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		86	0.26	63	0.00	86	0.03	85	0.03	83	0.03	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		84	0.30	79	0.00	84	0.03	82	0.03	73	0.04	85	0.03
Rossi 2007		72	0.38	35	0.00	67	0.04	63	0.04	52	0.06	54	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		66	0.41	83	0.00	60	0.05	58	0.05	51	0.05	55	0.05
Rubinstein 1952		71	0.38	22	0.00	40	0.06	41	0.13	45	0.11	36	0.12
Rubinstein 1966		51	0.46	40	0.00	34	0.06	27	0.27	44	0.12	24	0.18
Schilhawsky 1960		57	0.44	69	0.00	73	0.07	47	0.07	77	0.03	57	0.05
Shebanova 2002		11	0.56	16	0.01	10	0.13	8	0.55	44	0.12	18	0.26
Smith 1975		43	0.48	53	0.00	38	0.07	39	0.16	66	0.04	45	0.08
Sokolov 2002		74	0.38	41	0.00	64	0.05	56	0.05	72	0.03	62	0.04
Sztompka 1959		15	0.54	56	0.00	11	0.14	13	0.50	44	0.15	17	0.27
Tomsic 1995		22	0.52	38	0.00	27	0.06	28	0.25	12	0.55	12	0.37
Uninsky 1932		38	0.49	27	0.00	62	0.05	60	0.05	66	0.04	71	0.04
Uninsky 1971		20	0.52	18	0.00	30	0.06	34	0.20	45	0.13	27	0.16
Wasowski 1980		8	0.57	19	0.00	9	0.11	12	0.51	27	0.39	7	0.45
Zak 1937		17	0.54	25	0.00	23	0.10	17	0.43	61	0.05	28	0.15
Zak 1951		23	0.52	84	0.00	26	0.07	19	0.39	64	0.05	30	0.14
Average		1	0.64	1	0.37	1	0.37	1	0.79	56	0.06	21	0.22
Random 1		89	-0.02	57	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	5	0.50	42	0.10
Random 2		91	-0.10	64	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	82	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		90	-0.06	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	36	0.18	75	0.04

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).