Rosenthal 1931d

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		24	0.44	23	0.00	27	0.08	21	0.47	83	0.03	25	0.12
Anderszewski 2003		34	0.42	73	0.00	43	0.07	37	0.22	86	0.03	38	0.08
Ashkenazy 1981		50	0.36	55	0.00	38	0.06	39	0.19	81	0.03	41	0.08
Bacha 2000		43	0.38	56	0.00	25	0.08	34	0.24	84	0.03	34	0.08
Badura 1965		86	0.22	29	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	81	0.03	76	0.03
Barbosa 1983		88	0.19	57	0.00	60	0.04	68	0.04	83	0.03	70	0.03
Biret 1990		16	0.48	45	0.00	19	0.15	11	0.60	80	0.03	22	0.13
Blet 2003		42	0.38	9	0.00	36	0.07	40	0.19	63	0.04	31	0.09
Block 1995		74	0.30	74	0.00	65	0.04	73	0.04	82	0.03	78	0.03
Blumental 1952		14	0.49	19	0.00	9	0.24	7	0.69	47	0.06	10	0.20
Boshniakovich 1969		62	0.33	75	0.00	76	0.04	72	0.04	86	0.03	80	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		12	0.50	30	0.00	11	0.16	13	0.58	26	0.41	6	0.49
Bunin 1987		84	0.24	46	0.00	86	0.03	80	0.03	70	0.04	81	0.03
Bunin 1987b		85	0.23	36	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	76	0.04	65	0.03
Chiu 1999		79	0.27	27	0.00	47	0.04	66	0.04	75	0.03	62	0.03
Cohen 1997		83	0.25	47	0.00	37	0.06	44	0.13	68	0.04	44	0.07
Cortot 1951		60	0.33	37	0.00	74	0.05	50	0.05	76	0.03	59	0.04
Csalog 1996		25	0.44	58	0.00	29	0.09	28	0.39	51	0.05	19	0.14
Czerny 1949		45	0.37	48	0.00	57	0.04	75	0.04	85	0.03	73	0.03
Czerny 1990		17	0.48	59	0.00	12	0.17	14	0.56	63	0.05	13	0.17
Duchoud 2007		75	0.29	76	0.00	63	0.05	54	0.05	88	0.02	74	0.03
Ezaki 2006		27	0.44	49	0.00	21	0.12	16	0.53	73	0.04	15	0.15
Falvay 1989		19	0.47	50	0.00	17	0.12	19	0.50	57	0.06	12	0.17
Farrell 1958		54	0.35	38	0.00	46	0.07	46	0.07	69	0.04	47	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		48	0.37	24	0.00	61	0.04	64	0.04	70	0.03	72	0.03
Fliere 1977		18	0.47	15	0.00	20	0.16	26	0.40	87	0.02	29	0.09
Fou 1978		33	0.43	32	0.00	22	0.10	20	0.47	86	0.03	24	0.12
Francois 1956		52	0.36	60	0.00	48	0.04	65	0.04	84	0.03	85	0.03
Friedman 1923		67	0.31	6	0.00	66	0.04	61	0.04	82	0.03	86	0.03
Friedman 1923b		69	0.31	61	0.00	64	0.04	74	0.04	87	0.02	82	0.03
Friedman 1930		61	0.33	51	0.00	70	0.04	67	0.04	82	0.03	71	0.03
Garcia 2007		56	0.34	62	0.00	71	0.04	63	0.04	87	0.03	75	0.03
Garcia 2007b		59	0.34	63	0.00	73	0.06	47	0.06	87	0.03	61	0.04
Gierzod 1998		22	0.45	77	0.00	34	0.07	31	0.31	88	0.02	39	0.08
Gornostaeva 1994		11	0.50	12	0.00	16	0.15	17	0.51	80	0.03	26	0.12
Groot 1988		41	0.39	64	0.00	35	0.07	32	0.30	86	0.03	33	0.09
Harasiewicz 1955		57	0.34	78	0.00	49	0.04	60	0.04	71	0.04	60	0.04
Hatto 1993		72	0.30	13	0.00	67	0.04	58	0.04	69	0.04	58	0.04
Hatto 1997		71	0.31	79	0.00	69	0.05	51	0.05	70	0.04	55	0.04
Horowitz 1949		65	0.32	7	0.00	75	0.04	69	0.04	70	0.05	51	0.04
Indjic 1988		68	0.31	80	0.00	68	0.05	49	0.05	67	0.04	52	0.04
Kapell 1951		21	0.46	65	0.00	31	0.08	29	0.35	88	0.02	36	0.08
Kissin 1993		39	0.39	66	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.13	68	0.04	43	0.07
Kushner 1989		23	0.45	39	0.00	44	0.08	41	0.18	77	0.03	42	0.07
Luisada 1991		37	0.40	67	0.00	39	0.06	42	0.18	87	0.02	45	0.06
Lushtak 2004		76	0.29	81	0.00	54	0.04	70	0.04	88	0.03	77	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		20	0.47	20	0.00	24	0.08	27	0.40	60	0.04	20	0.13
Magaloff 1978		9	0.51	16	0.00	15	0.15	15	0.54	59	0.04	16	0.15
Magin 1975		10	0.51	33	0.00	13	0.14	9	0.63	83	0.03	17	0.14
Michalowski 1933		38	0.40	21	0.00	40	0.05	43	0.14	57	0.05	37	0.08
Milkina 1970		15	0.49	68	0.00	23	0.09	22	0.46	81	0.04	18	0.14
Mohovich 1999		26	0.44	82	0.00	26	0.08	24	0.42	73	0.04	21	0.13
Moravec 1969		6	0.56	83	0.00	5	0.28	8	0.65	12	0.59	5	0.62
Morozova 2008		55	0.34	84	0.00	50	0.05	57	0.05	70	0.04	54	0.04
Neighaus 1950		77	0.28	40	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	82	0.04	84	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		29	0.43	25	0.00	14	0.14	18	0.51	43	0.13	9	0.26
Ohlsson 1999		53	0.35	85	0.00	56	0.04	71	0.04	83	0.03	68	0.03
Osinska 1989		28	0.43	31	0.00	42	0.06	38	0.21	88	0.02	46	0.06
Pachmann 1927		70	0.31	41	0.00	82	0.02	89	0.02	84	0.02	90	0.02
Paderewski 1930		66	0.31	52	0.00	77	0.03	76	0.03	86	0.03	66	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		64	0.33	34	0.00	72	0.05	48	0.05	87	0.03	48	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		78	0.28	11	0.00	80	0.03	78	0.03	84	0.03	63	0.03
Poblocka 1999		30	0.43	42	0.00	41	0.06	35	0.22	81	0.03	35	0.08
Rabcewiczowa 1932		7	0.53	10	0.00	7	0.23	12	0.60	29	0.26	8	0.39
Rachmaninoff 1923		8	0.53	5	0.00	6	0.22	6	0.74	36	0.21	7	0.39
Rangell 2001		73	0.30	69	0.00	79	0.03	83	0.03	83	0.03	83	0.03
Richter 1976		87	0.21	86	0.00	88	0.03	79	0.03	86	0.02	89	0.02
Rosen 1989		32	0.43	35	0.00	28	0.08	30	0.32	88	0.02	40	0.08
Rosenthal 1930		4	0.77	4	0.01	4	0.82	4	0.92	3	0.91	4	0.91
Rosenthal 1931		2	0.88	3	0.10	2	0.74	2	0.97	2	0.96	2	0.96
Rosenthal 1931b		1	0.90	1	0.73	1	0.73	1	0.97	1	0.97	1	0.97
Rosenthal 1931c		3	0.86	2	0.14	3	0.86	3	0.96	1	0.96	3	0.96
Rosenthal 1931d		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rossi 2007		63	0.33	43	0.00	62	0.05	52	0.05	61	0.04	49	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		36	0.41	22	0.00	30	0.08	25	0.41	75	0.03	27	0.11
Rubinstein 1952		35	0.42	70	0.00	18	0.15	23	0.45	65	0.04	23	0.13
Rubinstein 1966		49	0.36	87	0.00	55	0.04	62	0.04	84	0.04	53	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		47	0.37	17	0.00	32	0.07	36	0.22	62	0.04	32	0.09
Shebanova 2002		44	0.38	88	0.00	53	0.05	53	0.05	76	0.04	57	0.04
Smith 1975		13	0.50	89	0.00	10	0.19	10	0.61	69	0.04	14	0.16
Sokolov 2002		31	0.43	8	0.00	33	0.06	33	0.30	73	0.03	30	0.09
Sztompka 1959		40	0.39	53	0.00	52	0.04	59	0.04	85	0.03	67	0.03
Tomsic 1995		82	0.26	71	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	83	0.03	88	0.02
Uninsky 1932		58	0.34	18	0.00	51	0.05	55	0.05	84	0.03	56	0.04
Uninsky 1971		80	0.26	90	0.00	87	0.03	81	0.03	86	0.03	69	0.03
Wasowski 1980		81	0.26	28	0.00	84	0.02	86	0.02	85	0.03	87	0.02
Zak 1937		46	0.37	14	0.00	58	0.03	77	0.03	77	0.04	64	0.03
Zak 1951		51	0.36	91	0.00	59	0.05	56	0.05	80	0.04	50	0.04
Average		5	0.57	26	0.00	8	0.30	5	0.78	69	0.04	11	0.18
Random 1		90	-0.09	54	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	56	0.04	79	0.03
Random 2		89	0.00	44	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	7	0.48	28	0.10
Random 3		91	-0.11	72	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	87	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).