Smith 1975

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		23	0.58	41	0.00	38	0.07	34	0.23	61	0.05	50	0.11
Anderszewski 2003		12	0.62	18	0.01	15	0.09	24	0.32	40	0.22	21	0.27
Ashkenazy 1981		25	0.58	25	0.00	25	0.07	22	0.33	27	0.30	19	0.31
Bacha 2000		59	0.50	79	0.00	49	0.06	49	0.06	20	0.36	31	0.15
Badura 1965		74	0.45	27	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	61	0.05	80	0.04
Barbosa 1983		42	0.54	38	0.00	18	0.08	23	0.32	25	0.44	10	0.38
Biret 1990		28	0.57	26	0.00	14	0.09	12	0.43	30	0.25	15	0.33
Blet 2003		50	0.52	46	0.00	68	0.04	73	0.04	42	0.11	60	0.07
Block 1995		68	0.48	61	0.00	56	0.04	66	0.04	39	0.16	58	0.08
Blumental 1952		24	0.58	14	0.01	9	0.15	9	0.53	16	0.37	7	0.44
Boshniakovich 1969		16	0.61	12	0.01	16	0.09	19	0.35	40	0.19	23	0.26
Brailowsky 1960		8	0.64	4	0.02	10	0.18	8	0.54	3	0.77	1	0.64
Bunin 1987		87	0.30	88	0.00	87	0.04	61	0.04	72	0.04	82	0.04
Bunin 1987b		88	0.29	82	0.00	88	0.04	68	0.04	79	0.03	87	0.03
Chiu 1999		63	0.49	89	0.00	62	0.04	72	0.04	56	0.05	70	0.04
Cohen 1997		85	0.37	84	0.00	83	0.03	87	0.03	36	0.15	62	0.07
Cortot 1951		79	0.43	62	0.00	80	0.03	83	0.03	64	0.05	84	0.04
Csalog 1996		75	0.43	34	0.00	60	0.04	75	0.04	45	0.11	59	0.07
Czerny 1949		37	0.55	6	0.02	28	0.06	35	0.23	57	0.05	49	0.11
Czerny 1990		7	0.65	13	0.01	6	0.14	5	0.56	26	0.41	6	0.48
Duchoud 2007		82	0.42	66	0.00	77	0.03	85	0.03	51	0.06	79	0.04
Ezaki 2006		11	0.63	7	0.01	19	0.07	25	0.31	38	0.20	24	0.25
Falvay 1989		17	0.60	19	0.00	29	0.06	32	0.25	23	0.46	14	0.34
Farrell 1958		52	0.51	90	0.00	33	0.05	31	0.25	44	0.17	25	0.21
Ferenczy 1958		40	0.54	48	0.00	54	0.05	55	0.05	19	0.42	37	0.14
Fliere 1977		2	0.70	2	0.06	3	0.36	2	0.73	24	0.35	5	0.51
Fou 1978		26	0.58	30	0.00	31	0.05	27	0.29	64	0.05	44	0.12
Francois 1956		70	0.47	91	0.00	74	0.05	54	0.05	54	0.05	68	0.05
Friedman 1923		46	0.53	40	0.00	55	0.06	50	0.06	36	0.30	42	0.13
Friedman 1923b		45	0.54	16	0.01	51	0.04	67	0.04	34	0.35	47	0.12
Friedman 1930		36	0.55	28	0.00	52	0.05	58	0.05	31	0.38	36	0.14
Garcia 2007		80	0.42	42	0.00	84	0.03	77	0.03	84	0.03	90	0.03
Garcia 2007b		54	0.51	45	0.00	50	0.04	65	0.04	51	0.05	85	0.04
Gierzod 1998		4	0.67	8	0.01	7	0.12	4	0.61	39	0.22	12	0.37
Gornostaeva 1994		6	0.66	55	0.00	8	0.15	7	0.55	6	0.61	2	0.58
Groot 1988		48	0.53	43	0.00	22	0.07	20	0.34	25	0.30	18	0.32
Harasiewicz 1955		14	0.61	32	0.00	17	0.10	14	0.42	56	0.05	39	0.14
Hatto 1993		38	0.55	83	0.00	43	0.07	41	0.17	46	0.07	51	0.11
Hatto 1997		35	0.55	74	0.00	47	0.08	46	0.08	55	0.06	61	0.07
Horowitz 1949		76	0.43	72	0.00	81	0.03	86	0.03	59	0.06	72	0.04
Indjic 1988		34	0.56	68	0.00	42	0.06	38	0.20	46	0.07	46	0.12
Kapell 1951		39	0.54	64	0.00	44	0.07	42	0.16	60	0.04	57	0.08
Kissin 1993		20	0.59	20	0.00	39	0.06	39	0.19	52	0.06	48	0.11
Kushner 1989		15	0.61	9	0.01	20	0.08	15	0.40	51	0.06	32	0.15
Luisada 1991		10	0.64	5	0.02	5	0.14	6	0.56	8	0.54	3	0.55
Lushtak 2004		44	0.54	49	0.00	32	0.05	37	0.21	56	0.05	55	0.10
Malcuzynski 1961		72	0.46	85	0.00	78	0.03	79	0.03	64	0.04	88	0.03
Magaloff 1978		29	0.57	76	0.00	11	0.10	18	0.36	12	0.43	9	0.39
Magin 1975		3	0.69	3	0.06	2	0.28	3	0.65	23	0.43	4	0.53
Michalowski 1933		64	0.48	67	0.00	76	0.03	88	0.03	49	0.08	66	0.05
Milkina 1970		13	0.61	35	0.00	13	0.10	11	0.44	41	0.23	17	0.32
Mohovich 1999		30	0.57	53	0.00	45	0.07	44	0.14	41	0.16	34	0.15
Moravec 1969		53	0.51	33	0.00	61	0.04	60	0.04	21	0.43	40	0.13
Morozova 2008		60	0.49	80	0.00	67	0.03	78	0.03	61	0.05	77	0.04
Neighaus 1950		43	0.54	29	0.00	37	0.05	40	0.17	34	0.23	26	0.20
Niedzielski 1931		67	0.48	69	0.00	59	0.03	80	0.03	64	0.04	86	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		47	0.53	31	0.00	48	0.07	48	0.07	61	0.05	64	0.06
Osinska 1989		9	0.64	47	0.00	12	0.10	10	0.47	38	0.22	16	0.32
Pachmann 1927		84	0.39	86	0.00	86	0.03	84	0.03	67	0.03	89	0.03
Paderewski 1930		86	0.37	52	0.00	85	0.05	53	0.05	51	0.04	74	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		69	0.48	87	0.00	70	0.04	64	0.04	51	0.05	69	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		77	0.43	70	0.00	75	0.03	82	0.03	57	0.05	71	0.04
Poblocka 1999		33	0.56	21	0.00	46	0.08	47	0.08	65	0.04	63	0.06
Rabcewiczowa 1932		71	0.47	36	0.00	36	0.06	43	0.16	48	0.06	53	0.10
Rachmaninoff 1923		32	0.56	50	0.00	35	0.05	30	0.26	44	0.12	27	0.18
Rangell 2001		83	0.41	77	0.00	79	0.04	71	0.04	56	0.05	83	0.04
Richter 1976		78	0.43	15	0.01	57	0.03	76	0.03	55	0.05	73	0.04
Rosen 1989		5	0.66	24	0.00	4	0.11	13	0.42	18	0.40	8	0.41
Rosenthal 1930		56	0.50	37	0.00	64	0.04	74	0.04	20	0.49	38	0.14
Rosenthal 1931		62	0.49	54	0.00	69	0.04	62	0.04	17	0.50	35	0.14
Rosenthal 1931b		61	0.49	78	0.00	66	0.05	57	0.05	15	0.53	30	0.16
Rosenthal 1931c		51	0.52	56	0.00	53	0.05	56	0.05	14	0.57	28	0.17
Rosenthal 1931d		58	0.50	57	0.00	65	0.04	69	0.04	10	0.61	29	0.16
Rossi 2007		73	0.45	58	0.00	63	0.04	70	0.04	38	0.24	52	0.10
Rubinstein 1939		41	0.54	22	0.00	30	0.05	33	0.24	28	0.34	20	0.29
Rubinstein 1952		49	0.53	23	0.00	24	0.09	21	0.33	27	0.37	13	0.35
Rubinstein 1966		18	0.60	10	0.01	23	0.08	16	0.39	30	0.36	11	0.37
Schilhawsky 1960		55	0.50	11	0.01	71	0.05	51	0.05	72	0.04	76	0.04
Shebanova 2002		27	0.57	65	0.00	34	0.06	28	0.27	74	0.04	54	0.10
Smith 1975		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Sokolov 2002		65	0.48	51	0.00	41	0.06	45	0.13	51	0.05	56	0.08
Sztompka 1959		19	0.59	81	0.00	21	0.10	17	0.37	53	0.06	33	0.15
Tomsic 1995		81	0.42	59	0.00	58	0.04	59	0.04	58	0.06	65	0.05
Uninsky 1932		66	0.48	73	0.00	73	0.04	63	0.04	57	0.05	78	0.04
Uninsky 1971		57	0.50	39	0.00	72	0.05	52	0.05	74	0.04	75	0.04
Wasowski 1980		31	0.57	60	0.00	40	0.07	36	0.21	50	0.07	43	0.12
Zak 1937		22	0.59	17	0.01	27	0.06	29	0.27	62	0.05	45	0.12
Zak 1951		21	0.59	44	0.00	26	0.07	26	0.30	55	0.06	41	0.13
Average		1	0.75	1	0.64	1	0.63	1	0.84	48	0.09	22	0.27
Random 1		90	-0.09	75	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	40	0.12	67	0.05
Random 2		91	-0.15	71	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	90	0.01	91	0.01
Random 3		89	-0.04	63	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	45	0.10	81	0.04

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).