Kapell 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		44	0.54	56	0.00	57	0.06	53	0.06	51	0.06	80	0.06
Anderszewski 2003		25	0.61	15	0.01	13	0.11	7	0.49	12	0.55	9	0.52
Ashkenazy 1981		70	0.49	71	0.00	64	0.04	69	0.04	47	0.07	81	0.05
Bacha 2000		78	0.46	88	0.00	66	0.05	57	0.05	15	0.37	50	0.14
Badura 1965		81	0.44	47	0.00	59	0.04	74	0.04	38	0.26	70	0.10
Barbosa 1983		67	0.50	24	0.00	22	0.11	23	0.35	9	0.58	18	0.45
Biret 1990		35	0.58	58	0.00	33	0.04	36	0.22	27	0.29	38	0.25
Blet 2003		61	0.51	30	0.00	69	0.04	75	0.04	28	0.28	62	0.11
Block 1995		55	0.52	3	0.02	21	0.09	29	0.26	9	0.54	27	0.37
Blumental 1952		31	0.59	26	0.00	28	0.07	25	0.30	9	0.46	28	0.37
Boshniakovich 1969		29	0.59	50	0.00	39	0.05	37	0.21	32	0.33	36	0.26
Brailowsky 1960		71	0.48	52	0.00	79	0.03	79	0.03	42	0.21	76	0.08
Bunin 1987		63	0.51	72	0.00	70	0.05	55	0.05	24	0.40	54	0.14
Bunin 1987b		60	0.52	76	0.00	67	0.04	67	0.04	16	0.46	51	0.14
Chiu 1999		74	0.47	68	0.00	50	0.07	49	0.07	15	0.36	47	0.16
Cohen 1997		88	0.32	27	0.00	88	0.04	72	0.04	48	0.06	82	0.05
Cortot 1951		57	0.52	81	0.00	46	0.06	50	0.06	7	0.61	46	0.19
Csalog 1996		7	0.65	19	0.01	8	0.10	13	0.43	2	0.71	6	0.55
Czerny 1949		20	0.63	28	0.00	10	0.09	10	0.47	20	0.53	14	0.50
Czerny 1990		5	0.66	5	0.02	7	0.10	8	0.49	12	0.60	7	0.54
Duchoud 2007		80	0.44	62	0.00	73	0.03	80	0.03	20	0.32	69	0.10
Ezaki 2006		18	0.63	6	0.02	9	0.14	11	0.47	8	0.64	5	0.55
Falvay 1989		47	0.54	42	0.00	63	0.06	51	0.06	36	0.27	56	0.13
Farrell 1958		66	0.50	21	0.00	45	0.06	44	0.12	27	0.41	40	0.22
Ferenczy 1958		42	0.55	66	0.00	54	0.04	65	0.04	6	0.57	49	0.15
Fliere 1977		3	0.68	22	0.00	4	0.15	4	0.61	19	0.46	8	0.53
Fou 1978		21	0.62	10	0.01	17	0.11	15	0.43	10	0.54	15	0.48
Francois 1956		72	0.48	82	0.00	77	0.04	78	0.04	47	0.06	84	0.05
Friedman 1923		87	0.41	79	0.00	82	0.03	86	0.03	59	0.05	89	0.04
Friedman 1923b		86	0.41	77	0.00	80	0.04	76	0.04	53	0.06	83	0.05
Friedman 1930		85	0.43	67	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	50	0.06	87	0.04
Garcia 2007		37	0.57	40	0.00	35	0.04	31	0.24	4	0.60	26	0.38
Garcia 2007b		17	0.63	11	0.01	11	0.11	12	0.45	3	0.61	10	0.52
Gierzod 1998		10	0.65	57	0.00	25	0.10	22	0.36	34	0.36	29	0.36
Gornostaeva 1994		33	0.58	13	0.01	44	0.06	42	0.15	16	0.51	35	0.28
Groot 1988		62	0.51	43	0.00	51	0.07	48	0.07	36	0.15	73	0.10
Harasiewicz 1955		13	0.64	8	0.01	3	0.20	3	0.64	15	0.59	3	0.61
Hatto 1993		58	0.52	61	0.00	42	0.10	39	0.20	35	0.22	44	0.21
Hatto 1997		49	0.53	69	0.00	31	0.05	35	0.23	33	0.20	43	0.21
Horowitz 1949		84	0.43	54	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	55	0.06	86	0.04
Indjic 1988		54	0.53	70	0.00	41	0.06	38	0.20	36	0.22	42	0.21
Kapell 1951		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Kissin 1993		24	0.61	59	0.00	34	0.05	34	0.24	33	0.37	34	0.30
Kushner 1989		4	0.67	16	0.01	5	0.10	5	0.57	20	0.55	4	0.56
Luisada 1991		52	0.53	83	0.00	61	0.04	68	0.04	63	0.05	85	0.04
Lushtak 2004		38	0.57	38	0.00	29	0.09	28	0.27	18	0.49	30	0.36
Malcuzynski 1961		28	0.59	2	0.04	14	0.09	24	0.33	5	0.62	17	0.45
Magaloff 1978		68	0.50	14	0.01	78	0.03	82	0.03	74	0.04	90	0.03
Magin 1975		23	0.61	89	0.00	37	0.05	40	0.20	40	0.20	45	0.20
Michalowski 1933		79	0.45	84	0.00	68	0.04	66	0.04	31	0.27	67	0.10
Milkina 1970		11	0.64	33	0.00	24	0.10	20	0.38	21	0.49	20	0.43
Mohovich 1999		14	0.63	17	0.01	23	0.09	27	0.30	18	0.54	25	0.40
Moravec 1969		39	0.57	35	0.00	30	0.06	45	0.11	16	0.54	39	0.24
Morozova 2008		36	0.57	25	0.00	32	0.04	32	0.24	16	0.44	33	0.32
Neighaus 1950		65	0.51	73	0.00	65	0.04	63	0.04	67	0.04	88	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		64	0.51	60	0.00	58	0.04	71	0.04	30	0.27	64	0.10
Ohlsson 1999		56	0.52	29	0.00	47	0.07	47	0.07	43	0.13	66	0.10
Osinska 1989		6	0.66	7	0.01	12	0.15	6	0.49	22	0.51	12	0.50
Pachmann 1927		77	0.46	51	0.00	81	0.02	87	0.02	11	0.49	65	0.10
Paderewski 1930		75	0.46	90	0.00	75	0.04	70	0.04	23	0.38	58	0.12
Perlemuter 1992		48	0.53	39	0.00	60	0.03	81	0.03	25	0.34	63	0.10
Pierdomenico 2008		82	0.44	23	0.00	74	0.05	59	0.05	38	0.25	61	0.11
Poblocka 1999		2	0.71	9	0.01	2	0.28	2	0.67	4	0.64	1	0.65
Rabcewiczowa 1932		8	0.65	63	0.00	16	0.08	16	0.41	3	0.62	13	0.50
Rachmaninoff 1923		59	0.52	85	0.00	49	0.06	52	0.06	50	0.06	79	0.06
Rangell 2001		46	0.54	4	0.02	53	0.05	56	0.05	12	0.50	48	0.16
Richter 1976		45	0.54	34	0.00	48	0.08	46	0.08	12	0.57	41	0.21
Rosen 1989		26	0.61	80	0.00	36	0.04	41	0.18	24	0.35	37	0.25
Rosenthal 1930		50	0.53	86	0.00	71	0.04	62	0.04	22	0.46	53	0.14
Rosenthal 1931		69	0.50	31	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	24	0.33	68	0.10
Rosenthal 1931b		73	0.47	48	0.00	86	0.04	77	0.04	35	0.25	74	0.10
Rosenthal 1931c		53	0.53	53	0.00	72	0.05	58	0.05	25	0.40	55	0.14
Rosenthal 1931d		76	0.46	74	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	29	0.35	78	0.08
Rossi 2007		83	0.43	37	0.00	76	0.04	73	0.04	27	0.33	60	0.11
Rubinstein 1939		40	0.56	55	0.00	52	0.05	54	0.05	30	0.33	57	0.13
Rubinstein 1952		22	0.62	32	0.00	27	0.08	26	0.30	14	0.55	24	0.41
Rubinstein 1966		27	0.60	12	0.01	20	0.10	19	0.39	17	0.51	19	0.45
Schilhawsky 1960		34	0.58	46	0.00	38	0.05	30	0.24	25	0.44	32	0.32
Shebanova 2002		32	0.58	41	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.14	48	0.06	75	0.09
Smith 1975		43	0.54	49	0.00	56	0.04	60	0.04	42	0.16	77	0.08
Sokolov 2002		51	0.53	64	0.00	55	0.04	64	0.04	23	0.33	59	0.11
Sztompka 1959		19	0.63	78	0.00	6	0.13	9	0.47	30	0.48	16	0.47
Tomsic 1995		41	0.55	44	0.00	62	0.04	61	0.04	17	0.51	52	0.14
Uninsky 1932		30	0.59	45	0.00	40	0.05	33	0.24	22	0.46	31	0.33
Uninsky 1971		9	0.65	36	0.00	26	0.08	21	0.36	21	0.49	22	0.42
Wasowski 1980		12	0.64	18	0.01	15	0.08	14	0.43	5	0.61	11	0.51
Zak 1937		15	0.63	20	0.00	19	0.10	18	0.40	17	0.45	21	0.42
Zak 1951		16	0.63	75	0.00	18	0.09	17	0.40	22	0.43	23	0.41
Average		1	0.76	1	0.70	1	0.70	1	0.86	22	0.46	2	0.63
Random 1		89	-0.03	65	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	4	0.50	71	0.10
Random 2		91	-0.08	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	81	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		90	-0.07	87	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	5	0.48	72	0.10

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).