Uninsky 1971

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		11	0.68	29	0.00	12	0.16	16	0.58	12	0.54	14	0.56
Anderszewski 2003		51	0.51	76	0.00	52	0.06	56	0.06	60	0.04	69	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		55	0.49	49	0.00	46	0.07	49	0.07	36	0.21	50	0.12
Bacha 2000		80	0.39	31	0.00	61	0.05	64	0.05	45	0.10	56	0.07
Badura 1965		23	0.59	52	0.00	18	0.13	25	0.47	9	0.58	17	0.52
Barbosa 1983		69	0.43	12	0.01	58	0.06	55	0.06	40	0.15	53	0.09
Biret 1990		58	0.48	34	0.00	51	0.08	47	0.08	74	0.04	62	0.06
Blet 2003		37	0.55	82	0.00	54	0.07	51	0.07	16	0.39	42	0.17
Block 1995		47	0.52	35	0.00	41	0.06	45	0.13	34	0.20	44	0.16
Blumental 1952		59	0.48	50	0.00	36	0.05	41	0.17	38	0.16	45	0.16
Boshniakovich 1969		10	0.68	2	0.05	9	0.14	10	0.61	11	0.58	8	0.59
Brailowsky 1960		74	0.42	44	0.00	76	0.05	72	0.05	59	0.05	64	0.05
Bunin 1987		43	0.54	63	0.00	38	0.08	43	0.16	12	0.49	36	0.28
Bunin 1987b		45	0.53	71	0.00	37	0.05	42	0.16	8	0.50	34	0.28
Chiu 1999		67	0.44	21	0.00	62	0.05	70	0.05	42	0.12	55	0.08
Cohen 1997		88	0.24	43	0.00	80	0.03	87	0.03	54	0.05	78	0.04
Cortot 1951		38	0.55	85	0.00	50	0.07	48	0.07	6	0.63	40	0.21
Csalog 1996		64	0.44	36	0.00	68	0.04	73	0.04	58	0.05	76	0.04
Czerny 1949		8	0.68	10	0.01	7	0.13	7	0.63	13	0.57	7	0.60
Czerny 1990		18	0.61	5	0.04	22	0.10	24	0.48	33	0.33	30	0.40
Duchoud 2007		79	0.40	51	0.00	70	0.04	78	0.04	45	0.11	57	0.07
Ezaki 2006		36	0.55	68	0.00	47	0.06	54	0.06	64	0.04	63	0.05
Falvay 1989		82	0.35	54	0.00	84	0.04	82	0.04	85	0.03	84	0.03
Farrell 1958		78	0.40	42	0.00	65	0.04	80	0.04	63	0.06	67	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		25	0.59	45	0.00	35	0.06	35	0.26	8	0.55	31	0.38
Fliere 1977		6	0.69	22	0.00	10	0.15	12	0.61	15	0.48	16	0.54
Fou 1978		42	0.54	56	0.00	33	0.06	34	0.26	35	0.22	38	0.24
Francois 1956		61	0.46	39	0.00	69	0.04	75	0.04	50	0.05	83	0.04
Friedman 1923		41	0.54	86	0.00	31	0.11	30	0.34	9	0.54	26	0.43
Friedman 1923b		40	0.54	55	0.00	30	0.13	29	0.40	10	0.57	22	0.48
Friedman 1930		49	0.52	69	0.00	45	0.08	44	0.16	21	0.48	35	0.28
Garcia 2007		54	0.49	74	0.00	59	0.07	50	0.07	38	0.25	48	0.13
Garcia 2007b		30	0.58	46	0.00	27	0.13	26	0.47	15	0.51	21	0.49
Gierzod 1998		7	0.69	7	0.02	8	0.13	9	0.62	20	0.54	9	0.58
Gornostaeva 1994		56	0.49	53	0.00	67	0.05	69	0.05	70	0.03	79	0.04
Groot 1988		62	0.45	30	0.00	60	0.05	61	0.05	78	0.04	80	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		12	0.66	13	0.01	14	0.19	3	0.68	11	0.63	3	0.65
Hatto 1993		31	0.58	8	0.02	5	0.15	14	0.60	7	0.55	13	0.57
Hatto 1997		24	0.59	57	0.00	6	0.12	15	0.59	8	0.55	12	0.57
Horowitz 1949		32	0.58	64	0.00	43	0.08	33	0.29	7	0.55	29	0.40
Indjic 1988		22	0.59	3	0.04	4	0.14	13	0.60	8	0.55	11	0.57
Kapell 1951		15	0.65	40	0.00	21	0.10	21	0.49	21	0.36	27	0.42
Kissin 1993		9	0.68	20	0.00	16	0.20	5	0.64	11	0.62	4	0.63
Kushner 1989		39	0.55	58	0.00	53	0.06	53	0.06	50	0.06	60	0.06
Luisada 1991		35	0.56	32	0.00	44	0.10	36	0.24	39	0.17	41	0.20
Lushtak 2004		60	0.46	41	0.00	63	0.06	52	0.06	68	0.04	71	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		44	0.54	15	0.01	19	0.11	40	0.19	22	0.33	37	0.25
Magaloff 1978		68	0.43	28	0.00	73	0.05	68	0.05	58	0.04	73	0.04
Magin 1975		19	0.61	37	0.00	39	0.05	38	0.20	46	0.06	51	0.11
Michalowski 1933		34	0.57	33	0.00	24	0.11	27	0.44	8	0.59	18	0.51
Milkina 1970		20	0.60	11	0.01	29	0.12	28	0.42	39	0.24	33	0.32
Mohovich 1999		50	0.51	19	0.01	56	0.05	60	0.05	48	0.08	61	0.06
Moravec 1969		63	0.45	26	0.00	75	0.05	59	0.05	43	0.13	54	0.08
Morozova 2008		33	0.57	72	0.00	40	0.05	39	0.20	37	0.24	39	0.22
Neighaus 1950		26	0.59	70	0.00	25	0.12	20	0.50	18	0.49	20	0.49
Niedzielski 1931		28	0.58	62	0.00	34	0.06	32	0.29	15	0.46	32	0.37
Ohlsson 1999		46	0.53	25	0.00	23	0.10	22	0.49	21	0.45	23	0.47
Osinska 1989		27	0.58	65	0.00	32	0.06	31	0.32	54	0.07	46	0.15
Pachmann 1927		77	0.40	84	0.00	82	0.04	83	0.04	76	0.03	86	0.03
Paderewski 1930		71	0.42	66	0.00	64	0.04	79	0.04	31	0.27	52	0.10
Perlemuter 1992		48	0.52	61	0.00	49	0.06	58	0.06	26	0.32	47	0.14
Pierdomenico 2008		81	0.36	90	0.00	81	0.04	81	0.04	70	0.04	75	0.04
Poblocka 1999		2	0.73	18	0.01	13	0.23	11	0.61	12	0.54	10	0.57
Rabcewiczowa 1932		52	0.50	60	0.00	57	0.05	62	0.05	51	0.05	66	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		57	0.49	47	0.00	55	0.08	46	0.08	54	0.05	59	0.06
Rangell 2001		76	0.41	79	0.00	77	0.05	65	0.05	48	0.06	72	0.05
Richter 1976		5	0.70	6	0.02	15	0.20	4	0.64	3	0.68	2	0.66
Rosen 1989		29	0.58	59	0.00	42	0.07	37	0.21	43	0.13	43	0.17
Rosenthal 1930		70	0.42	75	0.00	79	0.04	76	0.04	55	0.04	77	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.29	38	0.00	86	0.03	88	0.03	78	0.03	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		86	0.28	91	0.00	87	0.04	84	0.04	85	0.02	90	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		83	0.34	80	0.00	85	0.05	63	0.05	76	0.03	81	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		87	0.26	87	0.00	88	0.03	86	0.03	81	0.03	89	0.03
Rossi 2007		84	0.31	77	0.00	83	0.05	71	0.05	59	0.05	65	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		66	0.44	24	0.00	72	0.04	77	0.04	85	0.03	85	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		75	0.41	27	0.00	74	0.05	66	0.05	66	0.04	82	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		72	0.42	88	0.00	71	0.06	57	0.06	64	0.05	70	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		4	0.71	9	0.01	3	0.25	8	0.62	11	0.59	6	0.60
Shebanova 2002		14	0.65	48	0.00	17	0.19	17	0.56	20	0.45	19	0.50
Smith 1975		53	0.50	14	0.01	66	0.04	74	0.04	52	0.05	74	0.04
Sokolov 2002		65	0.44	23	0.00	48	0.05	67	0.05	29	0.27	49	0.12
Sztompka 1959		13	0.66	16	0.01	11	0.13	6	0.63	14	0.57	5	0.60
Tomsic 1995		73	0.42	89	0.00	78	0.04	85	0.04	55	0.07	68	0.05
Uninsky 1932		1	0.81	1	0.61	1	0.61	1	0.83	1	0.85	1	0.84
Uninsky 1971		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Wasowski 1980		16	0.62	17	0.01	20	0.10	18	0.53	8	0.56	15	0.54
Zak 1937		17	0.61	78	0.00	26	0.14	19	0.51	23	0.42	25	0.46
Zak 1951		21	0.60	67	0.00	28	0.16	23	0.48	26	0.36	28	0.42
Average		3	0.72	4	0.04	2	0.27	2	0.80	34	0.28	24	0.47
Random 1		89	-0.04	81	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	23	0.28	58	0.07
Random 2		90	-0.08	73	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	38	0.12	88	0.03
Random 3		91	-0.09	83	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	52	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).