Tomsic 1995

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		47	0.43	39	0.00	57	0.08	50	0.08	87	0.02	74	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		25	0.49	25	0.00	27	0.09	21	0.47	59	0.04	29	0.14
Ashkenazy 1981		63	0.38	51	0.00	62	0.06	60	0.06	82	0.03	75	0.04
Bacha 2000		56	0.40	41	0.00	42	0.05	41	0.14	80	0.03	47	0.06
Badura 1965		61	0.39	73	0.00	55	0.07	56	0.07	62	0.05	52	0.06
Barbosa 1983		45	0.43	62	0.00	24	0.07	33	0.34	39	0.18	15	0.25
Biret 1990		33	0.47	74	0.00	28	0.09	26	0.43	59	0.04	33	0.13
Blet 2003		39	0.45	40	0.00	48	0.07	53	0.07	62	0.05	51	0.06
Block 1995		17	0.52	7	0.02	18	0.09	12	0.55	28	0.25	8	0.37
Blumental 1952		57	0.40	42	0.00	40	0.05	39	0.17	77	0.04	41	0.08
Boshniakovich 1969		20	0.51	52	0.00	35	0.07	35	0.33	62	0.05	32	0.13
Brailowsky 1960		62	0.39	19	0.01	66	0.05	66	0.05	76	0.04	63	0.04
Bunin 1987		75	0.32	65	0.00	78	0.05	70	0.05	64	0.04	76	0.04
Bunin 1987b		74	0.32	61	0.00	77	0.06	62	0.06	83	0.03	67	0.04
Chiu 1999		53	0.42	26	0.00	47	0.07	51	0.07	54	0.05	49	0.06
Cohen 1997		71	0.34	35	0.00	56	0.07	54	0.07	45	0.10	43	0.08
Cortot 1951		81	0.28	37	0.00	69	0.04	77	0.04	85	0.03	84	0.03
Csalog 1996		10	0.55	31	0.00	6	0.13	10	0.59	10	0.50	3	0.54
Czerny 1949		65	0.38	88	0.00	71	0.06	61	0.06	83	0.03	73	0.04
Czerny 1990		29	0.48	38	0.00	41	0.05	43	0.13	71	0.04	46	0.07
Duchoud 2007		60	0.39	59	0.00	53	0.06	63	0.06	54	0.05	61	0.05
Ezaki 2006		16	0.53	43	0.00	25	0.08	19	0.48	51	0.06	19	0.17
Falvay 1989		2	0.62	5	0.03	3	0.22	2	0.68	10	0.53	2	0.60
Farrell 1958		30	0.48	49	0.00	22	0.10	25	0.46	66	0.05	21	0.15
Ferenczy 1958		59	0.39	63	0.00	67	0.05	69	0.05	64	0.03	72	0.04
Fliere 1977		27	0.49	67	0.00	34	0.12	34	0.33	83	0.03	36	0.10
Fou 1978		18	0.52	23	0.00	16	0.08	15	0.52	65	0.04	24	0.14
Francois 1956		58	0.40	75	0.00	58	0.09	46	0.09	69	0.04	54	0.06
Friedman 1923		87	0.24	81	0.00	87	0.03	82	0.03	76	0.04	86	0.03
Friedman 1923b		86	0.24	89	0.00	86	0.03	84	0.03	74	0.04	83	0.03
Friedman 1930		85	0.25	90	0.00	88	0.03	81	0.03	72	0.04	81	0.03
Garcia 2007		42	0.44	36	0.00	33	0.12	29	0.36	61	0.04	34	0.12
Garcia 2007b		49	0.43	54	0.00	52	0.05	68	0.05	56	0.04	78	0.04
Gierzod 1998		12	0.54	18	0.01	15	0.08	18	0.50	69	0.04	31	0.14
Gornostaeva 1994		32	0.47	56	0.00	44	0.06	42	0.14	86	0.03	53	0.06
Groot 1988		14	0.54	28	0.00	12	0.15	16	0.52	30	0.23	9	0.35
Harasiewicz 1955		23	0.50	24	0.00	29	0.09	24	0.46	79	0.03	35	0.12
Hatto 1993		68	0.37	66	0.00	61	0.06	59	0.06	76	0.03	77	0.04
Hatto 1997		64	0.38	48	0.00	59	0.08	48	0.08	88	0.03	60	0.05
Horowitz 1949		69	0.36	64	0.00	72	0.04	78	0.04	73	0.04	68	0.04
Indjic 1988		66	0.38	44	0.00	60	0.08	49	0.08	87	0.03	59	0.05
Kapell 1951		11	0.55	13	0.01	19	0.10	17	0.51	61	0.04	25	0.14
Kissin 1993		13	0.54	30	0.00	17	0.09	13	0.55	60	0.05	20	0.17
Kushner 1989		7	0.57	21	0.00	9	0.20	9	0.59	47	0.09	17	0.23
Luisada 1991		44	0.43	78	0.00	37	0.06	40	0.15	67	0.04	38	0.08
Lushtak 2004		19	0.52	17	0.01	13	0.12	14	0.54	42	0.13	14	0.26
Malcuzynski 1961		46	0.43	47	0.00	43	0.06	45	0.11	84	0.03	50	0.06
Magaloff 1978		34	0.47	55	0.00	38	0.05	38	0.18	57	0.04	39	0.08
Magin 1975		41	0.44	50	0.00	49	0.05	64	0.05	67	0.04	66	0.04
Michalowski 1933		88	0.23	79	0.00	82	0.02	86	0.02	86	0.03	87	0.02
Milkina 1970		4	0.59	2	0.08	2	0.31	4	0.65	36	0.32	5	0.46
Mohovich 1999		1	0.64	1	0.55	1	0.54	1	0.74	16	0.59	1	0.66
Moravec 1969		55	0.41	45	0.00	65	0.08	47	0.08	77	0.03	55	0.05
Morozova 2008		24	0.49	4	0.04	11	0.14	11	0.56	45	0.10	16	0.24
Neighaus 1950		67	0.37	70	0.00	70	0.05	74	0.05	62	0.05	62	0.05
Niedzielski 1931		72	0.34	32	0.00	76	0.05	73	0.05	60	0.05	57	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		28	0.49	22	0.00	32	0.15	22	0.46	57	0.05	22	0.15
Osinska 1989		5	0.58	27	0.00	7	0.16	8	0.60	56	0.06	18	0.19
Pachmann 1927		40	0.44	20	0.00	50	0.05	67	0.05	21	0.39	28	0.14
Paderewski 1930		76	0.31	91	0.00	73	0.05	76	0.05	69	0.03	70	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		36	0.46	46	0.00	45	0.06	44	0.12	71	0.04	44	0.07
Pierdomenico 2008		31	0.48	14	0.01	21	0.08	30	0.36	30	0.32	10	0.34
Poblocka 1999		38	0.45	29	0.00	51	0.05	65	0.05	75	0.04	64	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		50	0.42	82	0.00	39	0.05	37	0.21	82	0.03	40	0.08
Rachmaninoff 1923		79	0.29	83	0.00	75	0.05	72	0.05	75	0.04	65	0.04
Rangell 2001		37	0.45	53	0.00	14	0.11	32	0.34	33	0.29	12	0.31
Richter 1976		70	0.36	8	0.02	68	0.05	75	0.05	65	0.04	69	0.04
Rosen 1989		6	0.57	9	0.01	5	0.25	6	0.63	31	0.28	7	0.42
Rosenthal 1930		83	0.26	76	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	86	0.02	89	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		77	0.30	60	0.00	79	0.04	79	0.04	85	0.03	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.28	58	0.00	81	0.02	88	0.02	87	0.02	91	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		78	0.30	84	0.00	80	0.04	80	0.04	85	0.02	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		84	0.26	85	0.00	84	0.03	83	0.03	87	0.02	90	0.02
Rossi 2007		43	0.44	6	0.03	23	0.09	31	0.35	29	0.32	11	0.33
Rubinstein 1939		26	0.49	34	0.00	31	0.13	20	0.48	41	0.15	13	0.27
Rubinstein 1952		9	0.56	11	0.01	10	0.21	7	0.61	30	0.35	6	0.46
Rubinstein 1966		8	0.57	3	0.05	4	0.19	3	0.65	28	0.38	4	0.50
Schilhawsky 1960		80	0.28	80	0.00	83	0.03	85	0.03	75	0.04	80	0.03
Shebanova 2002		15	0.53	33	0.00	26	0.11	23	0.46	52	0.05	23	0.15
Smith 1975		54	0.42	77	0.00	63	0.06	58	0.06	59	0.04	56	0.05
Sokolov 2002		48	0.43	15	0.01	36	0.09	36	0.28	80	0.03	37	0.09
Sztompka 1959		51	0.42	71	0.00	54	0.06	57	0.06	86	0.03	71	0.04
Tomsic 1995		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Uninsky 1932		73	0.33	68	0.00	74	0.05	71	0.05	87	0.02	82	0.03
Uninsky 1971		52	0.42	69	0.00	64	0.07	55	0.07	85	0.04	58	0.05
Wasowski 1980		35	0.46	12	0.01	46	0.07	52	0.07	55	0.06	48	0.06
Zak 1937		21	0.51	86	0.00	30	0.12	28	0.39	60	0.05	26	0.14
Zak 1951		22	0.50	10	0.01	20	0.08	27	0.40	62	0.05	27	0.14
Average		3	0.59	16	0.01	8	0.17	5	0.64	78	0.03	30	0.14
Random 1		90	-0.04	57	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	20	0.30	42	0.08
Random 2		91	-0.09	72	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	69	0.03	88	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.04	87	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	25	0.25	45	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).