Magin 1975

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		5	0.71	30	0.00	3	0.13	5	0.61	5	0.62	5	0.61
Anderszewski 2003		29	0.61	79	0.00	24	0.11	31	0.30	26	0.43	31	0.36
Ashkenazy 1981		13	0.66	21	0.00	11	0.12	10	0.54	2	0.68	6	0.61
Bacha 2000		86	0.40	81	0.00	83	0.04	66	0.04	47	0.05	81	0.04
Badura 1965		52	0.54	84	0.00	58	0.05	48	0.05	34	0.31	60	0.12
Barbosa 1983		83	0.44	35	0.00	68	0.05	55	0.05	41	0.13	71	0.08
Biret 1990		60	0.51	16	0.01	52	0.04	69	0.04	77	0.04	86	0.04
Blet 2003		59	0.52	85	0.00	80	0.03	75	0.03	48	0.07	78	0.05
Block 1995		72	0.49	69	0.00	63	0.04	68	0.04	32	0.22	70	0.09
Blumental 1952		45	0.56	62	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.15	31	0.22	45	0.18
Boshniakovich 1969		8	0.68	80	0.00	20	0.09	28	0.35	30	0.42	27	0.38
Brailowsky 1960		73	0.49	52	0.00	75	0.03	86	0.03	32	0.31	67	0.10
Bunin 1987		79	0.46	38	0.00	49	0.04	72	0.04	19	0.43	56	0.13
Bunin 1987b		80	0.46	17	0.01	50	0.04	71	0.04	19	0.43	52	0.13
Chiu 1999		74	0.49	33	0.00	44	0.07	44	0.14	7	0.42	40	0.24
Cohen 1997		88	0.27	71	0.00	88	0.04	62	0.04	62	0.04	85	0.04
Cortot 1951		85	0.43	88	0.00	87	0.04	70	0.04	56	0.05	87	0.04
Csalog 1996		77	0.47	10	0.01	51	0.04	61	0.04	44	0.11	72	0.07
Czerny 1949		26	0.62	59	0.00	9	0.10	15	0.50	21	0.51	19	0.50
Czerny 1990		24	0.63	76	0.00	28	0.08	19	0.46	23	0.44	24	0.45
Duchoud 2007		50	0.54	86	0.00	41	0.06	41	0.20	4	0.63	33	0.35
Ezaki 2006		17	0.66	31	0.00	21	0.10	24	0.43	16	0.55	20	0.49
Falvay 1989		68	0.50	47	0.00	76	0.03	74	0.03	48	0.09	77	0.05
Farrell 1958		64	0.51	66	0.00	59	0.04	60	0.04	46	0.08	74	0.06
Ferenczy 1958		81	0.46	60	0.00	84	0.03	79	0.03	60	0.04	88	0.03
Fliere 1977		2	0.72	15	0.01	5	0.12	4	0.64	12	0.51	8	0.57
Fou 1978		32	0.61	22	0.00	32	0.11	27	0.35	23	0.38	30	0.36
Francois 1956		61	0.51	39	0.00	64	0.05	49	0.05	23	0.45	47	0.15
Friedman 1923		49	0.54	45	0.00	55	0.05	52	0.05	28	0.38	51	0.14
Friedman 1923b		48	0.55	43	0.00	54	0.04	59	0.04	30	0.40	57	0.13
Friedman 1930		36	0.59	26	0.00	40	0.08	38	0.23	17	0.51	34	0.34
Garcia 2007		38	0.58	63	0.00	53	0.03	76	0.03	8	0.55	55	0.13
Garcia 2007b		34	0.59	53	0.00	37	0.06	35	0.28	13	0.52	28	0.38
Gierzod 1998		3	0.71	3	0.03	2	0.30	2	0.67	11	0.61	3	0.64
Gornostaeva 1994		10	0.67	34	0.00	15	0.10	7	0.56	4	0.71	4	0.63
Groot 1988		62	0.51	56	0.00	29	0.09	37	0.23	20	0.34	36	0.28
Harasiewicz 1955		14	0.66	6	0.01	12	0.14	11	0.53	26	0.50	17	0.51
Hatto 1993		42	0.57	67	0.00	36	0.12	34	0.28	36	0.22	39	0.25
Hatto 1997		40	0.57	48	0.00	35	0.11	33	0.29	35	0.18	41	0.23
Horowitz 1949		54	0.53	49	0.00	65	0.04	56	0.04	31	0.42	53	0.13
Indjic 1988		41	0.57	19	0.01	34	0.07	32	0.29	37	0.22	38	0.25
Kapell 1951		30	0.61	57	0.00	42	0.06	40	0.20	40	0.20	43	0.20
Kissin 1993		6	0.70	37	0.00	13	0.13	12	0.53	12	0.61	9	0.57
Kushner 1989		12	0.66	4	0.02	6	0.13	14	0.52	22	0.53	14	0.52
Luisada 1991		15	0.66	23	0.00	22	0.09	25	0.38	9	0.52	25	0.44
Lushtak 2004		57	0.52	44	0.00	60	0.05	53	0.05	50	0.06	80	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		44	0.56	64	0.00	62	0.04	63	0.04	30	0.21	69	0.09
Magaloff 1978		75	0.49	54	0.00	70	0.03	80	0.03	46	0.07	76	0.05
Magin 1975		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Michalowski 1933		23	0.63	7	0.01	31	0.10	26	0.36	1	0.73	16	0.51
Milkina 1970		22	0.64	82	0.00	30	0.12	18	0.46	32	0.41	26	0.43
Mohovich 1999		39	0.58	72	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.13	33	0.37	42	0.22
Moravec 1969		78	0.47	18	0.01	79	0.02	88	0.02	40	0.18	73	0.06
Morozova 2008		9	0.67	40	0.00	18	0.10	6	0.56	5	0.60	7	0.58
Neighaus 1950		47	0.55	73	0.00	56	0.05	51	0.05	27	0.31	62	0.12
Niedzielski 1931		46	0.56	74	0.00	57	0.05	54	0.05	28	0.29	58	0.12
Ohlsson 1999		25	0.62	29	0.00	10	0.14	16	0.49	9	0.57	13	0.53
Osinska 1989		27	0.62	61	0.00	33	0.09	29	0.34	39	0.21	37	0.27
Pachmann 1927		69	0.50	36	0.00	81	0.03	73	0.03	5	0.55	54	0.13
Paderewski 1930		84	0.43	75	0.00	85	0.03	87	0.03	43	0.11	75	0.06
Perlemuter 1992		65	0.51	28	0.00	66	0.05	47	0.05	39	0.17	68	0.09
Pierdomenico 2008		71	0.49	55	0.00	69	0.03	77	0.03	21	0.40	65	0.11
Poblocka 1999		18	0.65	12	0.01	25	0.11	22	0.44	15	0.51	23	0.47
Rabcewiczowa 1932		51	0.54	8	0.01	27	0.08	30	0.31	15	0.41	29	0.36
Rachmaninoff 1923		31	0.61	20	0.01	7	0.11	13	0.53	6	0.56	10	0.54
Rangell 2001		76	0.47	27	0.00	67	0.04	64	0.04	27	0.37	61	0.12
Richter 1976		35	0.59	32	0.00	48	0.04	57	0.04	25	0.49	48	0.14
Rosen 1989		4	0.71	9	0.01	8	0.11	3	0.64	2	0.71	2	0.67
Rosenthal 1930		53	0.54	24	0.00	73	0.03	81	0.03	19	0.51	59	0.12
Rosenthal 1931		55	0.53	25	0.00	72	0.04	65	0.04	8	0.63	46	0.16
Rosenthal 1931b		56	0.53	14	0.01	71	0.03	84	0.03	8	0.65	50	0.14
Rosenthal 1931c		63	0.51	51	0.00	77	0.03	82	0.03	17	0.51	63	0.12
Rosenthal 1931d		66	0.51	50	0.00	78	0.03	83	0.03	9	0.63	49	0.14
Rossi 2007		87	0.40	89	0.00	86	0.03	78	0.03	55	0.06	82	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		67	0.50	65	0.00	74	0.03	85	0.03	46	0.06	83	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		70	0.49	5	0.01	26	0.08	42	0.18	37	0.23	44	0.20
Rubinstein 1966		58	0.52	13	0.01	61	0.04	58	0.04	53	0.06	79	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		21	0.64	11	0.01	16	0.10	21	0.45	17	0.54	21	0.49
Shebanova 2002		19	0.65	68	0.00	4	0.12	9	0.54	19	0.46	18	0.50
Smith 1975		7	0.69	2	0.05	14	0.11	23	0.43	3	0.65	11	0.53
Sokolov 2002		43	0.56	46	0.00	39	0.06	39	0.22	13	0.44	35	0.31
Sztompka 1959		11	0.67	77	0.00	17	0.11	8	0.55	25	0.51	12	0.53
Tomsic 1995		82	0.44	58	0.00	82	0.04	67	0.04	64	0.05	84	0.04
Uninsky 1932		28	0.62	70	0.00	38	0.06	36	0.27	20	0.47	32	0.36
Uninsky 1971		33	0.61	78	0.00	46	0.06	46	0.06	38	0.20	66	0.11
Wasowski 1980		37	0.59	83	0.00	47	0.05	50	0.05	36	0.24	64	0.11
Zak 1937		20	0.65	42	0.00	23	0.09	20	0.45	14	0.52	22	0.48
Zak 1951		16	0.66	41	0.00	19	0.10	17	0.49	11	0.56	15	0.52
Average		1	0.79	1	0.67	1	0.66	1	0.84	7	0.62	1	0.72
Random 1		91	-0.12	87	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	60	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.07	90	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	51	0.04	89	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.07	91	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	47	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).