Rangell 2001

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		58	0.38	89	0.00	68	0.04	69	0.04	86	0.02	82	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		20	0.48	3	0.06	3	0.13	9	0.54	39	0.25	4	0.37
Ashkenazy 1981		53	0.39	77	0.00	55	0.04	63	0.04	85	0.03	83	0.03
Bacha 2000		56	0.39	38	0.00	51	0.05	61	0.05	50	0.05	50	0.05
Badura 1965		75	0.31	76	0.00	67	0.05	60	0.05	80	0.03	69	0.04
Barbosa 1983		61	0.36	27	0.00	25	0.05	32	0.31	66	0.04	40	0.11
Biret 1990		13	0.50	23	0.01	20	0.10	15	0.46	67	0.04	31	0.14
Blet 2003		71	0.33	40	0.00	71	0.04	72	0.04	82	0.02	79	0.03
Block 1995		34	0.44	46	0.00	13	0.08	18	0.43	26	0.28	6	0.35
Blumental 1952		66	0.34	22	0.01	59	0.05	57	0.05	56	0.05	54	0.05
Boshniakovich 1969		9	0.51	19	0.01	9	0.13	7	0.54	57	0.05	25	0.16
Brailowsky 1960		84	0.28	79	0.00	87	0.03	86	0.03	87	0.02	89	0.02
Bunin 1987		65	0.35	28	0.00	62	0.03	80	0.03	57	0.05	70	0.04
Bunin 1987b		72	0.33	90	0.00	70	0.04	71	0.04	64	0.04	61	0.04
Chiu 1999		74	0.32	62	0.00	57	0.06	47	0.06	67	0.04	51	0.05
Cohen 1997		85	0.27	50	0.00	72	0.04	62	0.04	42	0.11	48	0.07
Cortot 1951		40	0.44	45	0.00	34	0.07	37	0.27	30	0.33	9	0.30
Csalog 1996		63	0.36	86	0.00	52	0.04	70	0.04	70	0.04	64	0.04
Czerny 1949		23	0.48	9	0.03	19	0.12	19	0.42	54	0.06	24	0.16
Czerny 1990		17	0.49	12	0.03	17	0.09	10	0.53	64	0.05	26	0.16
Duchoud 2007		38	0.44	25	0.01	43	0.07	44	0.18	40	0.16	21	0.17
Ezaki 2006		32	0.45	11	0.03	18	0.11	16	0.46	47	0.07	18	0.18
Falvay 1989		19	0.48	73	0.00	37	0.06	38	0.27	39	0.22	13	0.24
Farrell 1958		30	0.46	8	0.03	8	0.12	6	0.57	39	0.24	3	0.37
Ferenczy 1958		78	0.29	74	0.00	82	0.05	51	0.05	72	0.03	66	0.04
Fliere 1977		55	0.39	87	0.00	50	0.05	52	0.05	85	0.03	57	0.04
Fou 1978		28	0.46	54	0.00	23	0.05	26	0.38	66	0.04	35	0.12
Francois 1956		35	0.44	20	0.01	35	0.06	35	0.27	49	0.06	33	0.13
Friedman 1923		86	0.27	39	0.00	76	0.03	77	0.03	83	0.03	88	0.03
Friedman 1923b		87	0.27	68	0.00	75	0.04	68	0.04	81	0.03	84	0.03
Friedman 1930		83	0.28	34	0.00	79	0.04	73	0.04	80	0.04	65	0.04
Garcia 2007		46	0.41	80	0.00	54	0.07	46	0.07	64	0.04	53	0.05
Garcia 2007b		39	0.44	64	0.00	47	0.05	55	0.05	84	0.03	72	0.04
Gierzod 1998		11	0.51	63	0.00	31	0.08	24	0.39	78	0.03	41	0.11
Gornostaeva 1994		8	0.52	67	0.00	15	0.14	20	0.39	35	0.17	11	0.26
Groot 1988		57	0.38	78	0.00	41	0.07	43	0.18	71	0.04	45	0.08
Harasiewicz 1955		16	0.49	5	0.05	4	0.15	4	0.59	57	0.05	22	0.17
Hatto 1993		82	0.28	33	0.00	66	0.05	59	0.05	84	0.03	71	0.04
Hatto 1997		79	0.29	83	0.00	65	0.04	65	0.04	84	0.03	81	0.03
Horowitz 1949		70	0.33	65	0.00	80	0.03	82	0.03	75	0.04	77	0.03
Indjic 1988		77	0.30	44	0.00	64	0.03	84	0.03	84	0.03	78	0.03
Kapell 1951		5	0.54	4	0.05	11	0.10	12	0.50	56	0.05	23	0.16
Kissin 1993		18	0.49	36	0.00	33	0.08	17	0.43	58	0.05	27	0.15
Kushner 1989		1	0.58	1	0.26	1	0.26	2	0.71	31	0.32	1	0.48
Luisada 1991		62	0.36	75	0.00	69	0.04	75	0.04	77	0.03	73	0.03
Lushtak 2004		45	0.41	10	0.03	16	0.10	21	0.39	35	0.22	10	0.29
Malcuzynski 1961		6	0.53	14	0.02	7	0.14	13	0.48	23	0.33	2	0.40
Magaloff 1978		51	0.40	18	0.01	60	0.03	78	0.03	77	0.04	74	0.03
Magin 1975		24	0.47	41	0.00	26	0.05	27	0.37	64	0.04	34	0.12
Michalowski 1933		64	0.35	58	0.00	73	0.04	64	0.04	64	0.04	63	0.04
Milkina 1970		3	0.57	7	0.04	5	0.22	3	0.60	49	0.06	17	0.19
Mohovich 1999		26	0.47	13	0.02	36	0.06	28	0.35	69	0.04	38	0.12
Moravec 1969		50	0.40	37	0.00	74	0.06	49	0.06	72	0.03	56	0.04
Morozova 2008		42	0.43	21	0.01	28	0.05	36	0.27	71	0.04	43	0.10
Neighaus 1950		21	0.48	17	0.01	21	0.05	29	0.35	76	0.04	39	0.12
Niedzielski 1931		88	0.27	91	0.00	81	0.04	67	0.04	71	0.03	76	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		22	0.48	56	0.00	30	0.07	25	0.38	73	0.04	37	0.12
Osinska 1989		10	0.51	43	0.00	10	0.15	8	0.54	51	0.07	16	0.19
Pachmann 1927		60	0.37	61	0.00	63	0.03	81	0.03	40	0.18	46	0.07
Paderewski 1930		41	0.43	30	0.00	22	0.06	39	0.27	27	0.33	8	0.30
Perlemuter 1992		54	0.39	69	0.00	53	0.05	50	0.05	80	0.03	58	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		15	0.49	70	0.00	24	0.05	31	0.33	22	0.40	5	0.36
Poblocka 1999		29	0.46	52	0.00	45	0.10	41	0.20	60	0.05	42	0.10
Rabcewiczowa 1932		36	0.44	51	0.00	46	0.05	54	0.05	69	0.04	60	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		80	0.29	81	0.00	77	0.04	76	0.04	86	0.03	75	0.03
Rangell 2001		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Richter 1976		59	0.37	59	0.00	61	0.04	74	0.04	60	0.05	62	0.04
Rosen 1989		27	0.47	48	0.00	44	0.08	45	0.16	71	0.05	44	0.09
Rosenthal 1930		69	0.33	31	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	88	0.02	91	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		67	0.34	57	0.00	84	0.02	87	0.02	77	0.03	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		73	0.32	84	0.00	85	0.03	85	0.03	81	0.03	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		68	0.34	85	0.00	83	0.03	79	0.03	79	0.03	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		76	0.30	88	0.00	88	0.03	83	0.03	83	0.03	85	0.03
Rossi 2007		52	0.40	16	0.01	38	0.06	42	0.19	32	0.29	14	0.23
Rubinstein 1939		44	0.42	42	0.00	42	0.09	40	0.21	45	0.09	29	0.14
Rubinstein 1952		43	0.42	29	0.00	49	0.05	53	0.05	60	0.05	55	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		37	0.44	60	0.00	40	0.06	34	0.28	45	0.10	19	0.17
Schilhawsky 1960		81	0.29	53	0.00	78	0.04	66	0.04	81	0.03	80	0.03
Shebanova 2002		7	0.52	15	0.01	12	0.09	14	0.46	60	0.05	28	0.15
Smith 1975		47	0.41	71	0.00	48	0.05	56	0.05	71	0.04	59	0.04
Sokolov 2002		14	0.50	49	0.00	29	0.06	30	0.34	48	0.05	32	0.13
Sztompka 1959		4	0.56	6	0.04	6	0.10	5	0.59	51	0.07	15	0.20
Tomsic 1995		33	0.45	35	0.00	39	0.05	33	0.29	32	0.34	7	0.31
Uninsky 1932		49	0.40	32	0.00	56	0.05	58	0.05	79	0.03	67	0.04
Uninsky 1971		48	0.41	26	0.00	58	0.06	48	0.06	65	0.05	52	0.05
Wasowski 1980		12	0.50	24	0.01	14	0.10	11	0.50	44	0.13	12	0.25
Zak 1937		25	0.47	47	0.00	32	0.08	23	0.39	72	0.04	36	0.12
Zak 1951		31	0.46	66	0.00	27	0.06	22	0.39	72	0.05	30	0.14
Average		2	0.57	2	0.15	2	0.25	1	0.75	73	0.04	20	0.17
Random 1		91	-0.07	82	0.00	90	0.01	89	0.01	16	0.39	49	0.06
Random 2		90	-0.01	55	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	34	0.16	68	0.04
Random 3		89	-0.01	72	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	6	0.46	47	0.07

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).