Rachmaninoff 1923

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		3	0.68	9	0.02	2	0.17	2	0.65	7	0.59	2	0.62
Anderszewski 2003		7	0.63	44	0.00	39	0.07	34	0.23	38	0.26	35	0.24
Ashkenazy 1981		16	0.61	2	0.09	3	0.18	9	0.55	6	0.58	6	0.56
Bacha 2000		64	0.51	42	0.00	73	0.03	81	0.03	37	0.15	67	0.07
Badura 1965		59	0.52	8	0.02	68	0.05	56	0.05	57	0.05	76	0.05
Barbosa 1983		73	0.46	64	0.00	74	0.04	69	0.04	70	0.04	79	0.04
Biret 1990		12	0.62	23	0.00	17	0.08	18	0.37	24	0.35	24	0.36
Blet 2003		76	0.42	73	0.00	82	0.04	79	0.04	71	0.03	85	0.03
Block 1995		66	0.49	74	0.00	69	0.04	65	0.04	55	0.05	81	0.04
Blumental 1952		6	0.64	5	0.03	11	0.11	5	0.57	7	0.52	8	0.54
Boshniakovich 1969		68	0.49	75	0.00	65	0.03	82	0.03	81	0.04	88	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		13	0.62	3	0.03	47	0.05	52	0.05	12	0.62	41	0.18
Bunin 1987		77	0.42	50	0.00	75	0.05	58	0.05	31	0.32	49	0.13
Bunin 1987b		81	0.40	84	0.00	76	0.04	80	0.04	33	0.29	52	0.11
Chiu 1999		56	0.52	77	0.00	63	0.04	67	0.04	38	0.14	68	0.07
Cohen 1997		86	0.33	87	0.00	87	0.03	87	0.03	74	0.03	90	0.03
Cortot 1951		55	0.52	38	0.00	66	0.04	62	0.04	22	0.47	48	0.14
Csalog 1996		84	0.35	79	0.00	81	0.04	77	0.04	53	0.05	80	0.04
Czerny 1949		9	0.63	39	0.00	12	0.14	8	0.55	26	0.46	9	0.50
Czerny 1990		17	0.61	68	0.00	16	0.07	12	0.44	31	0.36	21	0.40
Duchoud 2007		80	0.40	53	0.00	78	0.05	57	0.05	37	0.17	60	0.09
Ezaki 2006		4	0.65	12	0.01	13	0.08	15	0.41	21	0.46	15	0.43
Falvay 1989		72	0.47	58	0.00	72	0.03	84	0.03	53	0.07	74	0.05
Farrell 1958		35	0.56	85	0.00	33	0.07	31	0.26	29	0.40	26	0.32
Ferenczy 1958		79	0.41	55	0.00	83	0.03	85	0.03	84	0.03	86	0.03
Fliere 1977		2	0.69	15	0.01	7	0.17	3	0.61	27	0.33	13	0.45
Fou 1978		22	0.60	30	0.00	27	0.08	26	0.30	28	0.28	28	0.29
Francois 1956		69	0.49	49	0.00	70	0.04	78	0.04	32	0.34	51	0.12
Friedman 1923		23	0.59	4	0.03	42	0.06	39	0.18	22	0.45	30	0.28
Friedman 1923b		25	0.59	7	0.02	40	0.07	35	0.23	24	0.46	25	0.33
Friedman 1930		32	0.58	67	0.00	49	0.06	48	0.06	30	0.40	47	0.15
Garcia 2007		65	0.50	80	0.00	64	0.04	74	0.04	34	0.30	54	0.11
Garcia 2007b		63	0.52	88	0.00	60	0.05	59	0.05	40	0.12	66	0.08
Gierzod 1998		14	0.61	62	0.00	10	0.14	11	0.53	36	0.33	16	0.42
Gornostaeva 1994		53	0.53	56	0.00	58	0.04	72	0.04	38	0.16	64	0.08
Groot 1988		34	0.57	26	0.00	15	0.09	17	0.39	12	0.46	17	0.42
Harasiewicz 1955		8	0.63	71	0.00	22	0.09	19	0.37	40	0.18	32	0.26
Hatto 1993		24	0.59	18	0.01	36	0.06	29	0.27	40	0.19	37	0.23
Hatto 1997		21	0.60	70	0.00	38	0.06	33	0.24	43	0.13	44	0.18
Horowitz 1949		38	0.56	31	0.00	46	0.06	49	0.06	6	0.56	43	0.18
Indjic 1988		20	0.60	47	0.00	37	0.08	30	0.27	41	0.18	38	0.22
Kapell 1951		62	0.52	81	0.00	50	0.06	50	0.06	52	0.06	70	0.06
Kissin 1993		29	0.58	59	0.00	19	0.08	20	0.36	30	0.41	23	0.38
Kushner 1989		57	0.52	82	0.00	57	0.03	83	0.03	53	0.06	77	0.04
Luisada 1991		28	0.58	27	0.00	48	0.05	51	0.05	48	0.08	69	0.06
Lushtak 2004		47	0.53	60	0.00	62	0.05	53	0.05	46	0.08	72	0.06
Malcuzynski 1961		37	0.56	11	0.02	25	0.06	24	0.31	9	0.54	19	0.41
Magaloff 1978		10	0.63	28	0.00	20	0.07	14	0.41	5	0.53	10	0.47
Magin 1975		15	0.61	72	0.00	5	0.16	6	0.56	13	0.53	7	0.54
Michalowski 1933		75	0.46	40	0.00	77	0.04	73	0.04	43	0.18	63	0.08
Milkina 1970		26	0.59	36	0.00	30	0.07	32	0.25	42	0.21	36	0.23
Mohovich 1999		40	0.56	20	0.01	52	0.08	46	0.08	42	0.15	55	0.11
Moravec 1969		46	0.54	33	0.00	34	0.07	40	0.17	15	0.57	27	0.31
Morozova 2008		41	0.55	51	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.13	41	0.22	45	0.17
Neighaus 1950		44	0.54	34	0.00	53	0.04	63	0.04	39	0.15	65	0.08
Niedzielski 1931		19	0.61	10	0.02	9	0.12	10	0.54	2	0.63	3	0.58
Ohlsson 1999		42	0.54	65	0.00	32	0.07	37	0.21	35	0.27	34	0.24
Osinska 1989		27	0.59	52	0.00	35	0.07	38	0.19	61	0.05	56	0.10
Pachmann 1927		83	0.38	89	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	64	0.04	84	0.03
Paderewski 1930		82	0.39	61	0.00	84	0.04	66	0.04	71	0.03	83	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		74	0.46	90	0.00	71	0.04	76	0.04	37	0.19	58	0.09
Pierdomenico 2008		85	0.35	29	0.00	79	0.05	60	0.05	31	0.30	50	0.12
Poblocka 1999		48	0.53	43	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	49	0.06	61	0.08
Rabcewiczowa 1932		33	0.57	17	0.01	8	0.16	16	0.39	13	0.44	18	0.41
Rachmaninoff 1923		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rangell 2001		88	0.29	76	0.00	85	0.03	86	0.03	76	0.04	91	0.03
Richter 1976		67	0.49	66	0.00	67	0.04	64	0.04	37	0.32	53	0.11
Rosen 1989		61	0.52	69	0.00	54	0.04	71	0.04	60	0.05	82	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		18	0.61	6	0.02	6	0.14	4	0.59	5	0.82	1	0.70
Rosenthal 1931		50	0.53	13	0.01	26	0.07	28	0.28	6	0.68	14	0.44
Rosenthal 1931b		49	0.53	25	0.00	23	0.06	23	0.32	6	0.69	11	0.47
Rosenthal 1931c		45	0.54	22	0.00	28	0.06	25	0.30	6	0.71	12	0.46
Rosenthal 1931d		51	0.53	54	0.00	29	0.07	36	0.21	6	0.74	22	0.39
Rossi 2007		71	0.48	91	0.00	80	0.05	55	0.05	45	0.12	62	0.08
Rubinstein 1939		60	0.52	14	0.01	55	0.04	68	0.04	39	0.20	59	0.09
Rubinstein 1952		78	0.41	21	0.00	24	0.06	42	0.14	35	0.26	40	0.19
Rubinstein 1966		52	0.53	83	0.00	56	0.04	70	0.04	52	0.06	75	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		5	0.65	16	0.01	4	0.14	7	0.56	9	0.59	5	0.57
Shebanova 2002		43	0.54	41	0.00	14	0.08	22	0.32	32	0.27	29	0.29
Smith 1975		36	0.56	19	0.01	44	0.05	44	0.12	30	0.26	42	0.18
Sokolov 2002		54	0.53	45	0.00	41	0.06	41	0.16	21	0.36	33	0.24
Sztompka 1959		11	0.62	35	0.00	18	0.08	13	0.41	32	0.41	20	0.41
Tomsic 1995		87	0.29	86	0.00	88	0.04	75	0.04	72	0.05	78	0.04
Uninsky 1932		39	0.56	24	0.00	51	0.07	47	0.07	30	0.38	46	0.16
Uninsky 1971		70	0.49	46	0.00	61	0.05	54	0.05	46	0.08	71	0.06
Wasowski 1980		58	0.52	63	0.00	59	0.05	61	0.05	63	0.05	73	0.05
Zak 1937		30	0.58	32	0.00	31	0.07	27	0.28	41	0.14	39	0.20
Zak 1951		31	0.58	37	0.00	21	0.08	21	0.36	35	0.21	31	0.27
Average		1	0.76	1	0.57	1	0.56	1	0.76	23	0.45	4	0.58
Random 1		91	-0.09	78	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	45	0.09	87	0.03
Random 2		89	0.01	48	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	5	0.51	57	0.10
Random 3		90	-0.06	57	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	42	0.12	89	0.03

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).