Falvay 1989

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		45	0.50	42	0.00	56	0.08	50	0.08	82	0.03	58	0.05
Anderszewski 2003		25	0.57	25	0.00	31	0.08	30	0.36	50	0.05	43	0.13
Ashkenazy 1981		64	0.43	75	0.00	69	0.05	67	0.05	89	0.02	79	0.03
Bacha 2000		50	0.48	43	0.00	54	0.06	58	0.06	61	0.04	54	0.05
Badura 1965		74	0.38	56	0.00	73	0.03	78	0.03	88	0.02	89	0.02
Barbosa 1983		32	0.55	47	0.00	13	0.14	26	0.41	31	0.39	15	0.40
Biret 1990		21	0.59	35	0.00	27	0.09	22	0.46	64	0.04	40	0.14
Blet 2003		63	0.44	85	0.00	66	0.05	64	0.05	86	0.02	74	0.03
Block 1995		36	0.54	8	0.02	18	0.07	24	0.46	16	0.46	9	0.46
Blumental 1952		18	0.60	9	0.02	7	0.11	8	0.56	28	0.24	21	0.37
Boshniakovich 1969		61	0.44	80	0.00	61	0.06	63	0.06	63	0.05	59	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		8	0.63	19	0.01	20	0.08	21	0.47	8	0.66	5	0.56
Bunin 1987		80	0.33	81	0.00	79	0.03	87	0.03	88	0.03	80	0.03
Bunin 1987b		83	0.31	63	0.00	80	0.04	72	0.04	86	0.03	69	0.03
Chiu 1999		24	0.57	76	0.00	33	0.06	31	0.32	24	0.27	26	0.29
Cohen 1997		44	0.50	24	0.00	37	0.07	37	0.25	3	0.52	23	0.36
Cortot 1951		86	0.30	64	0.00	85	0.03	76	0.03	86	0.03	83	0.03
Csalog 1996		6	0.64	2	0.17	2	0.36	3	0.64	1	0.72	1	0.68
Czerny 1949		72	0.39	71	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	72	0.04	77	0.03
Czerny 1990		5	0.66	4	0.07	6	0.25	6	0.60	34	0.31	14	0.43
Duchoud 2007		82	0.32	54	0.00	78	0.03	86	0.03	70	0.04	78	0.03
Ezaki 2006		9	0.63	17	0.01	26	0.12	13	0.50	40	0.18	25	0.30
Falvay 1989		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Farrell 1958		28	0.57	28	0.00	17	0.07	16	0.49	31	0.37	13	0.43
Ferenczy 1958		34	0.55	50	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.16	22	0.40	27	0.25
Fliere 1977		35	0.55	52	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.14	74	0.04	49	0.07
Fou 1978		10	0.63	32	0.00	25	0.09	18	0.48	44	0.11	29	0.23
Francois 1956		57	0.46	57	0.00	53	0.09	47	0.09	55	0.05	51	0.07
Friedman 1923		79	0.34	65	0.00	83	0.03	79	0.03	75	0.04	84	0.03
Friedman 1923b		81	0.33	11	0.01	82	0.03	82	0.03	75	0.04	81	0.03
Friedman 1930		73	0.39	82	0.00	75	0.03	74	0.03	83	0.03	76	0.03
Garcia 2007		65	0.43	77	0.00	63	0.05	70	0.05	72	0.04	66	0.04
Garcia 2007b		56	0.46	39	0.00	58	0.06	61	0.06	46	0.06	53	0.06
Gierzod 1998		26	0.57	69	0.00	42	0.07	42	0.19	76	0.03	47	0.08
Gornostaeva 1994		27	0.57	6	0.04	14	0.08	14	0.50	30	0.29	18	0.38
Groot 1988		38	0.54	45	0.00	23	0.08	19	0.47	23	0.31	19	0.38
Harasiewicz 1955		37	0.54	48	0.00	44	0.08	44	0.16	73	0.04	48	0.08
Hatto 1993		70	0.41	58	0.00	71	0.06	59	0.06	82	0.03	68	0.04
Hatto 1997		67	0.42	83	0.00	72	0.06	62	0.06	83	0.03	65	0.04
Horowitz 1949		84	0.30	86	0.00	87	0.03	81	0.03	81	0.03	71	0.03
Indjic 1988		66	0.42	49	0.00	70	0.04	73	0.04	75	0.03	73	0.03
Kapell 1951		39	0.54	37	0.00	40	0.11	36	0.27	51	0.06	42	0.13
Kissin 1993		29	0.56	12	0.01	32	0.08	38	0.24	69	0.04	46	0.10
Kushner 1989		2	0.67	7	0.02	3	0.14	2	0.69	23	0.52	3	0.60
Luisada 1991		30	0.56	61	0.00	38	0.08	35	0.29	64	0.05	44	0.12
Lushtak 2004		14	0.62	31	0.00	9	0.10	7	0.56	23	0.42	7	0.48
Malcuzynski 1961		68	0.41	46	0.00	60	0.04	71	0.04	88	0.02	70	0.03
Magaloff 1978		19	0.59	34	0.00	19	0.07	20	0.47	14	0.42	12	0.44
Magin 1975		46	0.50	36	0.00	47	0.09	48	0.09	74	0.03	57	0.05
Michalowski 1933		88	0.27	87	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	88	0.03	86	0.02
Milkina 1970		15	0.61	30	0.00	15	0.07	11	0.52	57	0.06	33	0.18
Mohovich 1999		7	0.63	22	0.01	10	0.09	9	0.55	27	0.42	8	0.48
Moravec 1969		12	0.62	14	0.01	16	0.09	12	0.51	13	0.57	6	0.54
Morozova 2008		60	0.46	66	0.00	59	0.06	60	0.06	83	0.03	64	0.04
Neighaus 1950		71	0.39	72	0.00	76	0.03	77	0.03	85	0.03	82	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		76	0.36	51	0.00	68	0.07	52	0.07	63	0.04	56	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		59	0.46	41	0.00	57	0.05	69	0.05	79	0.04	63	0.04
Osinska 1989		3	0.67	5	0.06	5	0.17	5	0.60	32	0.33	10	0.44
Pachmann 1927		58	0.46	78	0.00	64	0.05	65	0.05	23	0.38	39	0.14
Paderewski 1930		75	0.36	79	0.00	65	0.05	68	0.05	57	0.04	61	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		31	0.56	84	0.00	41	0.08	40	0.21	46	0.08	41	0.13
Pierdomenico 2008		42	0.51	23	0.00	21	0.06	32	0.31	17	0.44	20	0.37
Poblocka 1999		43	0.51	10	0.01	46	0.08	49	0.08	52	0.05	52	0.06
Rabcewiczowa 1932		33	0.55	16	0.01	8	0.13	25	0.45	20	0.32	16	0.38
Rachmaninoff 1923		54	0.47	62	0.00	51	0.07	53	0.07	84	0.03	55	0.05
Rangell 2001		49	0.48	18	0.01	28	0.08	39	0.22	38	0.27	28	0.24
Richter 1976		87	0.29	38	0.00	88	0.03	75	0.03	84	0.02	85	0.02
Rosen 1989		17	0.60	59	0.00	24	0.09	17	0.48	53	0.06	37	0.17
Rosenthal 1930		69	0.41	88	0.00	67	0.06	56	0.06	65	0.03	67	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		51	0.48	67	0.00	48	0.06	54	0.06	19	0.47	36	0.17
Rosenthal 1931b		53	0.47	89	0.00	50	0.07	51	0.07	19	0.47	34	0.18
Rosenthal 1931c		48	0.49	68	0.00	36	0.06	33	0.30	20	0.46	22	0.37
Rosenthal 1931d		52	0.47	44	0.00	49	0.06	57	0.06	19	0.50	38	0.17
Rossi 2007		40	0.53	26	0.00	29	0.08	27	0.40	10	0.48	11	0.44
Rubinstein 1939		41	0.52	53	0.00	39	0.10	41	0.21	42	0.14	35	0.17
Rubinstein 1952		4	0.66	1	0.32	1	0.31	4	0.62	9	0.60	2	0.61
Rubinstein 1966		11	0.62	20	0.01	12	0.11	15	0.49	33	0.30	17	0.38
Schilhawsky 1960		85	0.30	55	0.00	84	0.03	84	0.03	87	0.03	75	0.03
Shebanova 2002		23	0.57	15	0.01	30	0.09	34	0.30	75	0.04	45	0.11
Smith 1975		16	0.60	40	0.00	22	0.07	23	0.46	32	0.25	24	0.34
Sokolov 2002		62	0.44	13	0.01	52	0.09	46	0.09	53	0.05	50	0.07
Sztompka 1959		55	0.47	70	0.00	62	0.05	66	0.05	88	0.03	62	0.04
Tomsic 1995		13	0.62	33	0.00	11	0.13	10	0.53	2	0.68	4	0.60
Uninsky 1932		77	0.35	73	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	88	0.02	87	0.02
Uninsky 1971		78	0.35	60	0.00	77	0.03	85	0.03	82	0.04	72	0.03
Wasowski 1980		47	0.50	29	0.00	55	0.06	55	0.06	86	0.03	60	0.04
Zak 1937		20	0.59	27	0.00	35	0.11	28	0.38	42	0.13	30	0.22
Zak 1951		22	0.58	21	0.01	34	0.07	29	0.37	44	0.11	31	0.20
Average		1	0.69	3	0.11	4	0.17	1	0.71	59	0.05	32	0.19
Random 1		91	-0.15	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	71	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.09	91	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	74	0.03	88	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.12	74	0.00	90	0.01	89	0.01	49	0.05	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).