Paderewski 1930

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		8	0.51	61	0.00	29	0.11	22	0.40	75	0.04	26	0.13
Anderszewski 2003		35	0.43	52	0.00	50	0.03	81	0.03	85	0.03	75	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		57	0.39	69	0.00	52	0.03	76	0.03	84	0.03	85	0.03
Bacha 2000		43	0.42	13	0.01	47	0.04	58	0.04	58	0.04	48	0.04
Badura 1965		58	0.39	21	0.01	45	0.05	45	0.09	65	0.05	45	0.07
Barbosa 1983		88	0.22	56	0.00	77	0.03	72	0.03	81	0.04	72	0.03
Biret 1990		17	0.48	32	0.00	19	0.09	14	0.49	68	0.04	24	0.14
Blet 2003		51	0.41	77	0.00	58	0.04	65	0.04	74	0.03	76	0.03
Block 1995		87	0.22	59	0.00	82	0.02	88	0.02	83	0.03	90	0.02
Blumental 1952		24	0.46	15	0.01	16	0.08	19	0.45	55	0.05	22	0.15
Boshniakovich 1969		2	0.57	3	0.12	3	0.27	3	0.67	51	0.06	10	0.20
Brailowsky 1960		86	0.24	53	0.00	88	0.04	67	0.04	85	0.03	63	0.03
Bunin 1987		73	0.35	42	0.00	73	0.04	60	0.04	54	0.05	57	0.04
Bunin 1987b		76	0.34	45	0.00	74	0.04	53	0.04	49	0.05	52	0.04
Chiu 1999		65	0.37	37	0.00	69	0.03	82	0.03	66	0.04	66	0.03
Cohen 1997		72	0.35	43	0.00	59	0.04	55	0.04	29	0.23	34	0.10
Cortot 1951		46	0.41	16	0.01	35	0.06	38	0.16	50	0.05	35	0.09
Csalog 1996		80	0.32	85	0.00	79	0.03	85	0.03	78	0.03	74	0.03
Czerny 1949		20	0.47	24	0.00	21	0.08	18	0.45	64	0.05	21	0.15
Czerny 1990		15	0.49	17	0.01	17	0.10	16	0.49	65	0.05	16	0.16
Duchoud 2007		85	0.25	79	0.00	87	0.03	80	0.03	75	0.03	81	0.03
Ezaki 2006		79	0.32	80	0.00	84	0.03	75	0.03	77	0.04	61	0.03
Falvay 1989		68	0.36	86	0.00	72	0.04	57	0.04	68	0.05	50	0.04
Farrell 1958		29	0.44	34	0.00	23	0.14	20	0.45	56	0.06	14	0.16
Ferenczy 1958		61	0.37	70	0.00	66	0.05	47	0.05	55	0.04	55	0.04
Fliere 1977		30	0.44	48	0.00	41	0.06	40	0.13	77	0.04	41	0.07
Fou 1978		16	0.48	19	0.01	9	0.10	9	0.54	54	0.05	15	0.16
Francois 1956		4	0.54	1	0.26	1	0.26	2	0.69	12	0.56	1	0.62
Friedman 1923		67	0.37	62	0.00	70	0.04	62	0.04	66	0.05	60	0.04
Friedman 1923b		64	0.37	54	0.00	68	0.04	59	0.04	72	0.04	58	0.04
Friedman 1930		53	0.40	35	0.00	67	0.03	78	0.03	69	0.04	78	0.03
Garcia 2007		10	0.50	31	0.00	14	0.08	10	0.53	37	0.27	3	0.38
Garcia 2007b		18	0.48	36	0.00	15	0.09	12	0.52	45	0.08	11	0.20
Gierzod 1998		19	0.48	50	0.00	12	0.08	21	0.45	80	0.03	29	0.12
Gornostaeva 1994		28	0.45	30	0.00	37	0.06	35	0.21	67	0.03	40	0.08
Groot 1988		63	0.37	58	0.00	49	0.03	77	0.03	87	0.03	87	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		32	0.44	46	0.00	36	0.05	34	0.22	64	0.04	36	0.09
Hatto 1993		44	0.42	63	0.00	10	0.12	15	0.49	70	0.04	25	0.14
Hatto 1997		31	0.44	5	0.06	6	0.17	8	0.54	74	0.04	20	0.15
Horowitz 1949		74	0.34	39	0.00	83	0.03	87	0.03	83	0.03	69	0.03
Indjic 1988		33	0.43	38	0.00	8	0.10	13	0.51	85	0.03	28	0.12
Kapell 1951		23	0.46	23	0.00	27	0.09	23	0.38	70	0.04	27	0.12
Kissin 1993		22	0.47	67	0.00	28	0.09	28	0.33	84	0.03	32	0.10
Kushner 1989		11	0.50	72	0.00	13	0.08	7	0.57	69	0.04	18	0.15
Luisada 1991		60	0.38	40	0.00	60	0.05	48	0.05	76	0.03	49	0.04
Lushtak 2004		52	0.40	76	0.00	53	0.03	79	0.03	85	0.03	83	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		25	0.46	9	0.03	26	0.10	29	0.31	42	0.11	12	0.18
Magaloff 1978		45	0.42	10	0.02	22	0.09	30	0.29	67	0.04	31	0.11
Magin 1975		38	0.43	55	0.00	42	0.05	43	0.11	87	0.03	46	0.06
Michalowski 1933		7	0.51	12	0.02	25	0.08	25	0.36	28	0.28	5	0.32
Milkina 1970		37	0.43	87	0.00	56	0.04	56	0.04	83	0.03	68	0.03
Mohovich 1999		84	0.30	88	0.00	80	0.04	64	0.04	76	0.04	56	0.04
Moravec 1969		69	0.36	73	0.00	71	0.04	50	0.04	78	0.03	62	0.03
Morozova 2008		48	0.41	57	0.00	54	0.04	66	0.04	84	0.03	77	0.03
Neighaus 1950		3	0.55	8	0.03	5	0.20	5	0.61	42	0.13	8	0.28
Niedzielski 1931		26	0.45	20	0.01	33	0.06	36	0.20	74	0.03	37	0.08
Ohlsson 1999		40	0.42	28	0.00	46	0.04	52	0.04	87	0.03	71	0.03
Osinska 1989		27	0.45	81	0.00	34	0.06	33	0.25	65	0.05	30	0.11
Pachmann 1927		9	0.51	18	0.01	31	0.09	32	0.26	8	0.50	4	0.36
Paderewski 1930		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Perlemuter 1992		12	0.49	25	0.00	24	0.09	24	0.37	53	0.05	23	0.14
Pierdomenico 2008		14	0.49	6	0.05	7	0.16	6	0.60	12	0.48	2	0.54
Poblocka 1999		78	0.32	64	0.00	65	0.04	63	0.04	82	0.03	64	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		6	0.53	27	0.00	18	0.09	11	0.52	45	0.08	9	0.20
Rachmaninoff 1923		59	0.39	47	0.00	63	0.03	71	0.03	66	0.04	67	0.03
Rangell 2001		34	0.43	7	0.03	11	0.08	27	0.33	39	0.27	7	0.30
Richter 1976		62	0.37	41	0.00	48	0.04	68	0.04	79	0.03	70	0.03
Rosen 1989		36	0.43	71	0.00	55	0.04	49	0.04	84	0.03	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		70	0.35	65	0.00	75	0.04	54	0.04	77	0.03	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		82	0.31	74	0.00	86	0.03	70	0.03	83	0.03	73	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		75	0.34	60	0.00	78	0.03	84	0.03	75	0.03	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		71	0.35	82	0.00	76	0.04	61	0.04	66	0.04	59	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		81	0.31	78	0.00	81	0.03	86	0.03	76	0.03	86	0.03
Rossi 2007		13	0.49	14	0.01	30	0.11	26	0.35	34	0.27	6	0.31
Rubinstein 1939		39	0.42	66	0.00	40	0.05	41	0.13	57	0.04	42	0.07
Rubinstein 1952		77	0.33	89	0.00	61	0.05	46	0.05	87	0.02	89	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		54	0.40	49	0.00	57	0.03	73	0.03	71	0.05	54	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		41	0.42	26	0.00	43	0.05	42	0.12	71	0.04	44	0.07
Shebanova 2002		50	0.41	90	0.00	38	0.06	39	0.15	80	0.04	39	0.08
Smith 1975		66	0.37	22	0.00	62	0.04	51	0.04	53	0.05	51	0.04
Sokolov 2002		56	0.40	44	0.00	51	0.03	83	0.03	71	0.03	65	0.03
Sztompka 1959		5	0.54	4	0.09	4	0.18	4	0.65	61	0.05	13	0.18
Tomsic 1995		83	0.31	91	0.00	85	0.03	69	0.03	76	0.05	53	0.04
Uninsky 1932		55	0.40	83	0.00	64	0.03	74	0.03	70	0.04	79	0.03
Uninsky 1971		42	0.42	29	0.00	32	0.07	31	0.27	79	0.04	33	0.10
Wasowski 1980		21	0.47	11	0.02	20	0.09	17	0.46	65	0.05	17	0.15
Zak 1937		47	0.41	51	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.11	78	0.04	43	0.07
Zak 1951		49	0.41	33	0.00	39	0.07	37	0.17	78	0.04	38	0.08
Average		1	0.59	2	0.12	2	0.25	1	0.74	84	0.03	19	0.15
Random 1		91	-0.15	84	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	80	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		90	-0.10	75	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	45	0.07	80	0.03
Random 3		89	-0.08	68	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	39	0.13	47	0.05

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).