Moravec 1969

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		41	0.47	66	0.00	46	0.06	46	0.06	77	0.03	60	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		38	0.48	30	0.00	42	0.06	37	0.20	80	0.03	41	0.08
Ashkenazy 1981		68	0.39	70	0.00	75	0.04	63	0.04	74	0.03	85	0.03
Bacha 2000		47	0.45	35	0.00	33	0.06	36	0.21	54	0.05	32	0.10
Badura 1965		84	0.30	44	0.00	58	0.04	65	0.04	79	0.03	82	0.03
Barbosa 1983		39	0.47	43	0.00	24	0.10	28	0.33	36	0.20	19	0.26
Biret 1990		16	0.55	41	0.00	17	0.12	18	0.49	79	0.03	29	0.12
Blet 2003		58	0.42	82	0.00	62	0.03	70	0.03	85	0.02	88	0.02
Block 1995		74	0.36	62	0.00	76	0.04	69	0.04	81	0.03	83	0.03
Blumental 1952		1	0.66	1	0.40	1	0.40	1	0.76	4	0.59	1	0.67
Boshniakovich 1969		70	0.38	55	0.00	67	0.03	80	0.03	87	0.03	84	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		26	0.51	29	0.00	31	0.10	30	0.28	35	0.28	17	0.28
Bunin 1987		86	0.29	21	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	60	0.04	86	0.03
Bunin 1987b		87	0.28	27	0.00	86	0.03	74	0.03	62	0.04	71	0.03
Chiu 1999		50	0.45	45	0.00	30	0.06	41	0.17	52	0.05	36	0.09
Cohen 1997		71	0.38	24	0.00	56	0.05	56	0.05	46	0.06	51	0.05
Cortot 1951		59	0.42	83	0.00	69	0.03	73	0.03	45	0.09	52	0.05
Csalog 1996		23	0.51	22	0.00	23	0.10	24	0.38	32	0.22	16	0.29
Czerny 1949		28	0.51	11	0.02	25	0.09	20	0.45	66	0.04	26	0.13
Czerny 1990		2	0.65	9	0.02	2	0.21	3	0.74	17	0.48	8	0.60
Duchoud 2007		85	0.29	80	0.00	87	0.03	81	0.03	83	0.03	80	0.03
Ezaki 2006		8	0.59	6	0.03	11	0.19	5	0.67	25	0.38	10	0.50
Falvay 1989		4	0.62	3	0.06	13	0.22	13	0.57	12	0.51	9	0.54
Farrell 1958		40	0.47	52	0.00	29	0.07	31	0.28	59	0.06	25	0.13
Ferenczy 1958		44	0.46	38	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.14	50	0.05	42	0.08
Fliere 1977		33	0.49	46	0.00	39	0.06	38	0.19	73	0.04	35	0.09
Fou 1978		31	0.50	18	0.01	37	0.06	39	0.19	74	0.04	37	0.09
Francois 1956		63	0.40	71	0.00	61	0.04	66	0.04	65	0.04	65	0.04
Friedman 1923		79	0.35	67	0.00	79	0.05	57	0.05	78	0.04	67	0.04
Friedman 1923b		80	0.35	40	0.00	78	0.05	60	0.05	73	0.04	62	0.04
Friedman 1930		69	0.38	72	0.00	77	0.04	67	0.04	62	0.05	57	0.04
Garcia 2007		46	0.45	76	0.00	59	0.03	71	0.03	80	0.04	81	0.03
Garcia 2007b		43	0.47	60	0.00	51	0.05	58	0.05	65	0.04	66	0.04
Gierzod 1998		24	0.51	58	0.00	34	0.07	27	0.33	84	0.03	33	0.10
Gornostaeva 1994		32	0.50	28	0.00	35	0.06	34	0.22	82	0.03	44	0.08
Groot 1988		62	0.40	63	0.00	57	0.05	55	0.05	85	0.03	64	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		35	0.49	39	0.00	40	0.07	32	0.25	86	0.03	39	0.09
Hatto 1993		72	0.38	42	0.00	72	0.03	76	0.03	86	0.03	87	0.03
Hatto 1997		66	0.39	87	0.00	73	0.04	61	0.04	76	0.04	58	0.04
Horowitz 1949		77	0.36	88	0.00	80	0.03	85	0.03	79	0.04	73	0.03
Indjic 1988		67	0.39	77	0.00	74	0.04	64	0.04	77	0.03	79	0.03
Kapell 1951		11	0.57	15	0.01	16	0.09	16	0.54	45	0.11	20	0.24
Kissin 1993		21	0.52	51	0.00	26	0.09	26	0.37	66	0.04	28	0.12
Kushner 1989		30	0.50	61	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.13	78	0.03	47	0.06
Luisada 1991		51	0.45	53	0.00	54	0.05	54	0.05	85	0.03	53	0.04
Lushtak 2004		54	0.44	73	0.00	55	0.05	50	0.05	75	0.03	61	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		20	0.53	4	0.05	14	0.13	11	0.60	19	0.40	12	0.49
Magaloff 1978		14	0.56	14	0.01	15	0.12	17	0.50	28	0.28	14	0.37
Magin 1975		42	0.47	17	0.01	32	0.06	40	0.18	88	0.02	46	0.06
Michalowski 1933		78	0.35	49	0.00	65	0.03	83	0.03	78	0.03	78	0.03
Milkina 1970		13	0.56	32	0.00	18	0.12	10	0.60	60	0.05	22	0.17
Mohovich 1999		34	0.49	47	0.00	28	0.06	29	0.32	60	0.05	27	0.13
Moravec 1969		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Morozova 2008		73	0.38	84	0.00	64	0.03	82	0.03	88	0.02	89	0.02
Neighaus 1950		82	0.32	85	0.00	83	0.02	88	0.02	86	0.03	90	0.02
Niedzielski 1931		12	0.56	12	0.02	7	0.15	4	0.69	5	0.53	7	0.60
Ohlsson 1999		83	0.31	68	0.00	84	0.03	84	0.03	75	0.04	77	0.03
Osinska 1989		18	0.54	36	0.00	27	0.07	23	0.38	83	0.03	31	0.11
Pachmann 1927		76	0.36	26	0.00	82	0.03	79	0.03	57	0.04	76	0.03
Paderewski 1930		75	0.36	89	0.00	66	0.03	78	0.03	50	0.04	75	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		52	0.44	90	0.00	60	0.04	62	0.04	72	0.03	68	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		81	0.32	78	0.00	81	0.02	86	0.02	73	0.04	70	0.03
Poblocka 1999		36	0.49	59	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.13	78	0.03	45	0.06
Rabcewiczowa 1932		5	0.61	20	0.01	6	0.12	14	0.57	12	0.44	11	0.50
Rachmaninoff 1923		17	0.54	33	0.00	12	0.21	15	0.57	40	0.17	15	0.31
Rangell 2001		65	0.40	31	0.00	68	0.03	72	0.03	49	0.06	63	0.04
Richter 1976		88	0.27	64	0.00	88	0.04	68	0.04	88	0.02	74	0.03
Rosen 1989		37	0.48	50	0.00	36	0.06	35	0.21	63	0.05	34	0.10
Rosenthal 1930		9	0.58	8	0.02	9	0.16	8	0.60	7	0.67	4	0.63
Rosenthal 1931		7	0.59	2	0.14	4	0.24	7	0.63	7	0.64	3	0.63
Rosenthal 1931b		10	0.58	13	0.01	5	0.20	9	0.60	9	0.65	6	0.62
Rosenthal 1931c		6	0.61	16	0.01	3	0.20	6	0.64	7	0.66	2	0.65
Rosenthal 1931d		15	0.56	69	0.00	8	0.14	12	0.59	8	0.65	5	0.62
Rossi 2007		22	0.51	56	0.00	19	0.13	22	0.40	14	0.44	13	0.42
Rubinstein 1939		53	0.44	91	0.00	49	0.06	49	0.06	74	0.03	54	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		27	0.51	25	0.00	21	0.11	25	0.38	44	0.13	21	0.22
Rubinstein 1966		49	0.45	79	0.00	48	0.05	51	0.05	73	0.05	50	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		57	0.42	37	0.00	50	0.06	48	0.06	79	0.03	56	0.04
Shebanova 2002		55	0.44	48	0.00	52	0.05	59	0.05	82	0.03	59	0.04
Smith 1975		25	0.51	34	0.00	22	0.10	21	0.43	60	0.04	24	0.13
Sokolov 2002		64	0.40	19	0.01	53	0.05	52	0.05	87	0.02	69	0.03
Sztompka 1959		45	0.45	74	0.00	47	0.06	47	0.06	76	0.04	49	0.05
Tomsic 1995		61	0.41	54	0.00	63	0.03	77	0.03	47	0.08	48	0.05
Uninsky 1932		19	0.53	5	0.04	20	0.11	19	0.46	45	0.16	18	0.27
Uninsky 1971		48	0.45	10	0.02	41	0.06	43	0.13	59	0.05	40	0.08
Wasowski 1980		29	0.50	57	0.00	38	0.07	33	0.24	66	0.05	30	0.11
Zak 1937		56	0.42	81	0.00	71	0.05	53	0.05	73	0.04	55	0.04
Zak 1951		60	0.41	75	0.00	70	0.03	75	0.03	74	0.04	72	0.03
Average		3	0.64	7	0.02	10	0.18	2	0.76	77	0.03	23	0.15
Random 1		90	-0.08	65	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	11	0.45	38	0.09
Random 2		89	-0.04	23	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	17	0.34	43	0.08
Random 3		91	-0.14	86	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	86	0.02	91	0.01

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).