Schilhawsky 1960

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		4	0.72	32	0.00	7	0.18	5	0.61	6	0.61	3	0.61
Anderszewski 2003		44	0.55	67	0.00	54	0.08	47	0.08	54	0.04	60	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		47	0.53	68	0.00	37	0.10	34	0.26	32	0.25	36	0.25
Bacha 2000		81	0.37	44	0.00	76	0.03	76	0.03	72	0.04	84	0.03
Badura 1965		36	0.57	20	0.01	30	0.08	40	0.19	25	0.38	33	0.27
Barbosa 1983		76	0.41	34	0.00	74	0.04	74	0.04	58	0.05	79	0.04
Biret 1990		58	0.50	9	0.01	48	0.05	53	0.05	52	0.05	70	0.05
Blet 2003		53	0.51	49	0.00	60	0.04	64	0.04	44	0.10	61	0.06
Block 1995		69	0.44	88	0.00	70	0.03	77	0.03	47	0.07	67	0.05
Blumental 1952		51	0.52	12	0.01	40	0.08	39	0.19	65	0.04	51	0.09
Boshniakovich 1969		13	0.67	24	0.00	19	0.18	14	0.57	21	0.50	15	0.53
Brailowsky 1960		78	0.39	69	0.00	81	0.03	80	0.03	61	0.05	72	0.04
Bunin 1987		42	0.56	11	0.01	22	0.12	27	0.42	3	0.58	23	0.49
Bunin 1987b		45	0.54	45	0.00	23	0.11	29	0.41	3	0.57	24	0.48
Chiu 1999		71	0.43	23	0.00	58	0.03	78	0.03	84	0.03	85	0.03
Cohen 1997		88	0.24	89	0.00	86	0.03	88	0.03	83	0.03	89	0.03
Cortot 1951		31	0.58	77	0.00	36	0.11	32	0.38	3	0.71	16	0.52
Csalog 1996		83	0.37	73	0.00	75	0.03	84	0.03	76	0.03	88	0.03
Czerny 1949		1	0.76	1	0.33	1	0.33	2	0.73	4	0.70	1	0.71
Czerny 1990		20	0.64	35	0.00	33	0.09	26	0.43	44	0.13	38	0.24
Duchoud 2007		75	0.41	78	0.00	63	0.04	61	0.04	32	0.21	50	0.09
Ezaki 2006		28	0.59	46	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.10	52	0.06	54	0.08
Falvay 1989		85	0.30	61	0.00	87	0.03	87	0.03	84	0.03	86	0.03
Farrell 1958		64	0.46	63	0.00	62	0.05	54	0.05	53	0.06	63	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		59	0.49	74	0.00	56	0.04	59	0.04	49	0.06	66	0.05
Fliere 1977		3	0.74	17	0.01	6	0.12	8	0.60	11	0.52	8	0.56
Fou 1978		57	0.50	70	0.00	59	0.04	65	0.04	75	0.04	78	0.04
Francois 1956		63	0.47	31	0.00	72	0.03	82	0.03	58	0.05	83	0.04
Friedman 1923		40	0.56	29	0.00	51	0.06	50	0.06	20	0.47	44	0.17
Friedman 1923b		38	0.56	79	0.00	47	0.06	51	0.06	22	0.47	43	0.17
Friedman 1930		39	0.56	83	0.00	52	0.07	48	0.07	29	0.41	42	0.17
Garcia 2007		50	0.52	47	0.00	53	0.10	46	0.10	21	0.45	40	0.21
Garcia 2007b		56	0.50	59	0.00	39	0.08	38	0.19	31	0.33	37	0.25
Gierzod 1998		7	0.70	25	0.00	10	0.11	6	0.61	24	0.47	14	0.54
Gornostaeva 1994		62	0.47	72	0.00	71	0.05	56	0.05	58	0.04	80	0.04
Groot 1988		68	0.45	55	0.00	57	0.04	67	0.04	77	0.04	81	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		10	0.69	8	0.01	17	0.10	10	0.59	24	0.51	12	0.55
Hatto 1993		14	0.67	80	0.00	13	0.16	18	0.53	15	0.42	25	0.47
Hatto 1997		12	0.67	65	0.00	14	0.16	19	0.53	14	0.46	22	0.49
Horowitz 1949		30	0.59	42	0.00	31	0.10	30	0.40	2	0.61	21	0.49
Indjic 1988		11	0.68	64	0.00	12	0.13	16	0.54	14	0.47	17	0.50
Kapell 1951		33	0.58	60	0.00	27	0.10	25	0.44	30	0.24	32	0.32
Kissin 1993		9	0.70	21	0.01	9	0.20	7	0.60	15	0.60	4	0.60
Kushner 1989		35	0.57	43	0.00	49	0.06	52	0.06	62	0.05	64	0.05
Luisada 1991		32	0.58	85	0.00	46	0.05	57	0.05	60	0.05	62	0.05
Lushtak 2004		46	0.54	6	0.02	38	0.08	37	0.20	39	0.19	41	0.19
Malcuzynski 1961		37	0.56	19	0.01	16	0.11	35	0.26	16	0.44	31	0.34
Magaloff 1978		66	0.46	54	0.00	69	0.04	58	0.04	70	0.04	74	0.04
Magin 1975		19	0.64	26	0.00	20	0.16	17	0.54	21	0.45	20	0.49
Michalowski 1933		29	0.59	13	0.01	21	0.12	20	0.51	4	0.62	9	0.56
Milkina 1970		43	0.55	36	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	56	0.06	56	0.08
Mohovich 1999		67	0.46	62	0.00	66	0.04	63	0.04	54	0.06	69	0.05
Moravec 1969		73	0.42	39	0.00	77	0.03	79	0.03	48	0.06	71	0.04
Morozova 2008		24	0.61	28	0.00	34	0.12	31	0.39	29	0.34	29	0.36
Neighaus 1950		26	0.60	16	0.01	29	0.12	21	0.49	16	0.51	19	0.50
Niedzielski 1931		22	0.62	50	0.00	25	0.08	28	0.41	8	0.50	26	0.45
Ohlsson 1999		34	0.58	30	0.00	26	0.08	22	0.48	28	0.38	27	0.43
Osinska 1989		25	0.60	57	0.00	32	0.08	33	0.30	63	0.05	46	0.12
Pachmann 1927		65	0.46	66	0.00	79	0.03	85	0.03	42	0.16	59	0.07
Paderewski 1930		72	0.42	81	0.00	73	0.04	71	0.04	42	0.12	58	0.07
Perlemuter 1992		41	0.56	71	0.00	41	0.05	42	0.12	16	0.46	39	0.23
Pierdomenico 2008		80	0.38	33	0.00	78	0.03	86	0.03	48	0.06	76	0.04
Poblocka 1999		8	0.70	7	0.01	8	0.17	12	0.58	13	0.53	10	0.55
Rabcewiczowa 1932		48	0.53	51	0.00	50	0.07	49	0.07	44	0.10	55	0.08
Rachmaninoff 1923		18	0.65	4	0.10	5	0.18	9	0.59	7	0.56	6	0.57
Rangell 2001		86	0.29	53	0.00	80	0.03	81	0.03	66	0.04	90	0.03
Richter 1976		5	0.72	2	0.18	3	0.19	4	0.62	6	0.66	2	0.64
Rosen 1989		52	0.51	58	0.00	55	0.05	55	0.05	64	0.05	68	0.05
Rosenthal 1930		49	0.53	52	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.10	8	0.66	34	0.26
Rosenthal 1931		79	0.39	86	0.00	83	0.04	66	0.04	38	0.21	49	0.09
Rosenthal 1931b		77	0.39	75	0.00	82	0.03	83	0.03	36	0.22	57	0.08
Rosenthal 1931c		70	0.44	15	0.01	67	0.04	73	0.04	30	0.30	47	0.11
Rosenthal 1931d		82	0.37	37	0.00	84	0.04	62	0.04	36	0.22	53	0.09
Rossi 2007		84	0.35	84	0.00	85	0.04	70	0.04	67	0.04	73	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		61	0.47	22	0.00	65	0.04	68	0.04	64	0.04	77	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		74	0.41	40	0.00	68	0.04	60	0.04	59	0.05	82	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		54	0.51	56	0.00	61	0.04	69	0.04	56	0.06	65	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Shebanova 2002		15	0.66	14	0.01	15	0.18	3	0.64	17	0.48	11	0.55
Smith 1975		55	0.50	27	0.00	64	0.04	72	0.04	51	0.05	75	0.04
Sokolov 2002		60	0.48	10	0.01	42	0.06	41	0.13	36	0.20	45	0.16
Sztompka 1959		17	0.65	41	0.00	18	0.13	13	0.57	24	0.51	13	0.54
Tomsic 1995		87	0.28	76	0.00	88	0.04	75	0.04	85	0.03	87	0.03
Uninsky 1932		16	0.66	38	0.00	11	0.11	15	0.55	7	0.59	7	0.57
Uninsky 1971		6	0.71	5	0.02	4	0.23	11	0.59	8	0.62	5	0.60
Wasowski 1980		27	0.59	18	0.01	35	0.08	36	0.24	34	0.26	35	0.25
Zak 1937		23	0.62	90	0.00	28	0.10	24	0.44	31	0.28	30	0.35
Zak 1951		21	0.62	48	0.00	24	0.10	23	0.45	28	0.33	28	0.39
Average		2	0.76	3	0.13	2	0.28	1	0.79	32	0.32	18	0.50
Random 1		90	-0.02	91	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	17	0.37	52	0.09
Random 2		89	0.00	82	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	9	0.46	48	0.10
Random 3		91	-0.13	87	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	64	0.04	91	0.02

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).