Rossi 2007

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		22	0.51	19	0.01	39	0.08	37	0.24	81	0.03	42	0.08
Anderszewski 2003		16	0.54	74	0.00	31	0.09	26	0.33	75	0.03	38	0.10
Ashkenazy 1981		53	0.43	32	0.00	66	0.04	71	0.04	83	0.03	81	0.03
Bacha 2000		12	0.55	79	0.00	23	0.05	23	0.35	40	0.13	14	0.21
Badura 1965		66	0.39	60	0.00	74	0.04	82	0.04	83	0.03	80	0.03
Barbosa 1983		68	0.39	76	0.00	48	0.06	50	0.06	62	0.05	52	0.05
Biret 1990		9	0.55	62	0.00	11	0.16	9	0.52	78	0.04	24	0.14
Blet 2003		58	0.41	42	0.00	56	0.04	66	0.04	75	0.03	75	0.03
Block 1995		71	0.38	65	0.00	53	0.06	52	0.06	63	0.04	54	0.05
Blumental 1952		5	0.57	12	0.02	10	0.13	8	0.52	71	0.04	23	0.14
Boshniakovich 1969		50	0.44	24	0.00	52	0.06	54	0.06	82	0.04	55	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		73	0.36	87	0.00	82	0.03	88	0.03	86	0.02	87	0.02
Bunin 1987		87	0.17	53	0.00	88	0.04	80	0.04	85	0.03	82	0.03
Bunin 1987b		88	0.17	54	0.00	87	0.04	81	0.04	82	0.03	70	0.03
Chiu 1999		14	0.54	51	0.00	40	0.07	40	0.21	71	0.04	39	0.09
Cohen 1997		26	0.49	25	0.00	42	0.05	42	0.15	26	0.27	15	0.20
Cortot 1951		70	0.38	63	0.00	72	0.04	79	0.04	44	0.10	47	0.06
Csalog 1996		67	0.39	15	0.01	15	0.11	28	0.32	35	0.18	12	0.24
Czerny 1949		37	0.46	34	0.00	54	0.07	49	0.07	81	0.03	53	0.05
Czerny 1990		7	0.56	43	0.00	19	0.08	19	0.39	74	0.04	31	0.12
Duchoud 2007		79	0.31	40	0.00	79	0.03	85	0.03	80	0.03	78	0.03
Ezaki 2006		4	0.58	17	0.01	14	0.12	7	0.55	49	0.06	17	0.18
Falvay 1989		17	0.53	30	0.00	17	0.10	10	0.48	27	0.40	3	0.44
Farrell 1958		6	0.57	3	0.09	2	0.17	4	0.57	15	0.50	1	0.53
Ferenczy 1958		56	0.42	83	0.00	55	0.06	53	0.06	77	0.03	65	0.04
Fliere 1977		32	0.48	71	0.00	50	0.08	47	0.08	86	0.03	48	0.05
Fou 1978		10	0.55	26	0.00	20	0.07	16	0.41	56	0.05	20	0.14
Francois 1956		36	0.47	21	0.01	27	0.05	33	0.29	48	0.06	27	0.13
Friedman 1923		52	0.43	35	0.00	69	0.05	57	0.05	72	0.05	57	0.05
Friedman 1923b		49	0.44	48	0.00	67	0.04	63	0.04	80	0.03	83	0.03
Friedman 1930		48	0.44	72	0.00	68	0.04	64	0.04	66	0.04	64	0.04
Garcia 2007		15	0.54	22	0.01	13	0.10	5	0.56	18	0.49	2	0.52
Garcia 2007b		18	0.52	7	0.03	9	0.10	11	0.46	36	0.23	8	0.33
Gierzod 1998		21	0.51	33	0.00	26	0.06	21	0.36	63	0.04	29	0.12
Gornostaeva 1994		24	0.49	38	0.00	28	0.05	30	0.32	54	0.04	34	0.11
Groot 1988		69	0.39	84	0.00	49	0.06	51	0.06	83	0.04	56	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		8	0.55	10	0.02	21	0.08	25	0.33	68	0.04	35	0.11
Hatto 1993		47	0.45	88	0.00	64	0.04	77	0.04	80	0.03	84	0.03
Hatto 1997		39	0.46	89	0.00	58	0.04	62	0.04	82	0.03	77	0.03
Horowitz 1949		84	0.29	61	0.00	85	0.04	76	0.04	88	0.02	71	0.03
Indjic 1988		40	0.46	90	0.00	61	0.04	68	0.04	82	0.03	74	0.03
Kapell 1951		54	0.43	41	0.00	25	0.05	27	0.33	73	0.04	33	0.11
Kissin 1993		34	0.47	57	0.00	37	0.07	36	0.26	65	0.04	37	0.10
Kushner 1989		43	0.46	58	0.00	41	0.05	43	0.13	85	0.02	49	0.05
Luisada 1991		28	0.49	80	0.00	38	0.07	35	0.26	65	0.05	32	0.11
Lushtak 2004		55	0.43	81	0.00	57	0.05	58	0.05	78	0.03	67	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		19	0.51	2	0.15	5	0.15	6	0.56	21	0.35	4	0.44
Magaloff 1978		30	0.48	29	0.00	34	0.07	31	0.30	48	0.06	25	0.13
Magin 1975		63	0.40	49	0.00	51	0.06	55	0.06	78	0.03	60	0.04
Michalowski 1933		82	0.30	59	0.00	84	0.04	70	0.04	87	0.03	73	0.03
Milkina 1970		3	0.59	6	0.06	3	0.19	3	0.59	55	0.06	16	0.19
Mohovich 1999		41	0.46	36	0.00	35	0.09	20	0.37	64	0.04	30	0.12
Moravec 1969		20	0.51	18	0.01	16	0.11	14	0.44	22	0.40	5	0.42
Morozova 2008		59	0.41	73	0.00	65	0.04	65	0.04	86	0.02	76	0.03
Neighaus 1950		64	0.40	77	0.00	70	0.05	56	0.05	88	0.03	69	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		38	0.46	11	0.02	22	0.06	24	0.33	53	0.05	26	0.13
Ohlsson 1999		62	0.40	16	0.01	60	0.04	72	0.04	76	0.04	61	0.04
Osinska 1989		2	0.61	1	0.23	1	0.23	1	0.67	41	0.14	9	0.31
Pachmann 1927		72	0.37	66	0.00	83	0.04	73	0.04	86	0.02	72	0.03
Paderewski 1930		25	0.49	31	0.00	32	0.06	34	0.27	26	0.35	10	0.31
Perlemuter 1992		23	0.50	14	0.01	43	0.05	41	0.18	78	0.03	43	0.07
Pierdomenico 2008		35	0.47	9	0.03	7	0.08	18	0.40	15	0.45	6	0.42
Poblocka 1999		85	0.28	44	0.00	80	0.04	69	0.04	73	0.04	58	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		44	0.46	75	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.13	77	0.04	44	0.07
Rachmaninoff 1923		29	0.48	64	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	55	0.05	41	0.08
Rangell 2001		65	0.40	20	0.01	30	0.07	32	0.29	42	0.19	13	0.23
Richter 1976		86	0.23	23	0.01	86	0.03	84	0.03	85	0.02	88	0.02
Rosen 1989		13	0.54	13	0.01	8	0.09	17	0.41	61	0.05	22	0.14
Rosenthal 1930		83	0.29	85	0.00	81	0.03	86	0.03	79	0.03	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		81	0.31	86	0.00	78	0.04	60	0.04	60	0.04	62	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		78	0.33	78	0.00	76	0.03	87	0.03	68	0.04	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		75	0.33	67	0.00	71	0.04	75	0.04	75	0.03	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		76	0.33	82	0.00	77	0.04	61	0.04	52	0.05	68	0.04
Rossi 2007		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rubinstein 1939		33	0.48	52	0.00	24	0.06	15	0.42	47	0.06	19	0.16
Rubinstein 1952		57	0.42	4	0.07	6	0.10	13	0.45	41	0.16	11	0.27
Rubinstein 1966		11	0.55	8	0.03	12	0.12	12	0.45	51	0.07	18	0.18
Schilhawsky 1960		74	0.35	69	0.00	59	0.04	67	0.04	70	0.04	63	0.04
Shebanova 2002		60	0.40	68	0.00	62	0.03	83	0.03	88	0.02	89	0.02
Smith 1975		45	0.45	70	0.00	29	0.05	38	0.24	70	0.04	36	0.10
Sokolov 2002		77	0.33	39	0.00	75	0.04	74	0.04	65	0.04	59	0.04
Sztompka 1959		31	0.48	47	0.00	36	0.07	39	0.22	73	0.04	40	0.09
Tomsic 1995		51	0.44	28	0.00	33	0.07	29	0.32	31	0.35	7	0.33
Uninsky 1932		61	0.40	55	0.00	63	0.04	78	0.04	67	0.04	66	0.04
Uninsky 1971		80	0.31	37	0.00	73	0.05	59	0.05	71	0.05	51	0.05
Wasowski 1980		27	0.49	27	0.00	18	0.08	22	0.36	71	0.04	28	0.12
Zak 1937		42	0.46	50	0.00	47	0.09	46	0.09	80	0.04	45	0.06
Zak 1951		46	0.45	45	0.00	46	0.07	48	0.07	76	0.04	50	0.05
Average		1	0.62	5	0.06	4	0.17	2	0.66	76	0.03	21	0.14
Random 1		91	-0.20	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	88	0.01	91	0.01
Random 2		90	-0.12	56	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	70	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.06	46	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	37	0.17	46	0.06

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).