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

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).