Wasowski 1980

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		30	0.59	61	0.00	40	0.07	35	0.26	43	0.13	43	0.18
Anderszewski 2003		10	0.63	12	0.01	18	0.11	13	0.51	17	0.49	9	0.50
Ashkenazy 1981		68	0.50	84	0.00	69	0.05	67	0.05	55	0.06	75	0.05
Bacha 2000		77	0.42	81	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	71	0.04	84	0.03
Badura 1965		55	0.54	62	0.00	56	0.06	58	0.06	44	0.17	58	0.10
Barbosa 1983		35	0.58	4	0.05	13	0.10	28	0.39	10	0.58	12	0.48
Biret 1990		25	0.60	38	0.00	14	0.10	19	0.45	25	0.35	19	0.40
Blet 2003		56	0.52	34	0.00	58	0.05	61	0.05	24	0.30	53	0.12
Block 1995		39	0.57	10	0.01	23	0.07	27	0.39	12	0.51	15	0.45
Blumental 1952		33	0.58	9	0.01	22	0.07	29	0.32	33	0.21	35	0.26
Boshniakovich 1969		15	0.62	22	0.00	15	0.09	11	0.53	31	0.41	13	0.47
Brailowsky 1960		61	0.51	66	0.00	68	0.04	69	0.04	29	0.36	50	0.12
Bunin 1987		75	0.45	44	0.00	77	0.04	74	0.04	38	0.21	60	0.09
Bunin 1987b		76	0.44	54	0.00	76	0.03	87	0.03	38	0.23	62	0.08
Chiu 1999		46	0.56	55	0.00	36	0.06	43	0.18	11	0.40	32	0.27
Cohen 1997		84	0.36	45	0.00	82	0.05	64	0.05	60	0.04	81	0.04
Cortot 1951		58	0.52	32	0.00	63	0.04	80	0.04	18	0.49	49	0.14
Csalog 1996		80	0.42	67	0.00	64	0.04	78	0.04	60	0.05	79	0.04
Czerny 1949		24	0.60	35	0.00	33	0.07	33	0.29	41	0.23	34	0.26
Czerny 1990		9	0.64	26	0.00	20	0.10	22	0.43	37	0.22	31	0.31
Duchoud 2007		81	0.38	33	0.00	81	0.05	60	0.05	63	0.05	74	0.05
Ezaki 2006		34	0.58	73	0.00	55	0.07	51	0.07	60	0.04	69	0.05
Falvay 1989		67	0.50	14	0.01	75	0.03	86	0.03	55	0.06	76	0.04
Farrell 1958		65	0.50	74	0.00	65	0.04	76	0.04	52	0.06	71	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		48	0.56	75	0.00	50	0.08	47	0.08	12	0.52	41	0.20
Fliere 1977		7	0.65	8	0.01	5	0.15	10	0.54	30	0.25	22	0.37
Fou 1978		26	0.60	31	0.00	41	0.05	38	0.22	47	0.06	56	0.11
Francois 1956		70	0.47	85	0.00	73	0.04	72	0.04	57	0.05	83	0.04
Friedman 1923		52	0.55	17	0.01	54	0.06	54	0.06	27	0.40	47	0.15
Friedman 1923b		50	0.55	46	0.00	52	0.07	52	0.07	28	0.42	45	0.17
Friedman 1930		31	0.59	16	0.01	45	0.11	39	0.22	15	0.52	27	0.34
Garcia 2007		38	0.57	48	0.00	43	0.07	40	0.20	17	0.49	30	0.31
Garcia 2007b		18	0.62	13	0.01	11	0.10	12	0.53	8	0.56	5	0.54
Gierzod 1998		3	0.67	40	0.00	4	0.13	4	0.61	29	0.41	10	0.50
Gornostaeva 1994		16	0.62	24	0.00	16	0.09	9	0.56	10	0.57	3	0.56
Groot 1988		59	0.51	37	0.00	39	0.05	42	0.18	31	0.21	42	0.19
Harasiewicz 1955		5	0.66	5	0.04	8	0.11	7	0.58	29	0.41	11	0.49
Hatto 1993		23	0.60	49	0.00	32	0.11	26	0.40	43	0.17	36	0.26
Hatto 1997		17	0.62	25	0.00	21	0.11	16	0.49	30	0.23	28	0.34
Horowitz 1949		54	0.54	82	0.00	59	0.06	59	0.06	17	0.49	44	0.17
Indjic 1988		21	0.61	57	0.00	26	0.08	20	0.45	38	0.22	29	0.31
Kapell 1951		8	0.64	7	0.02	6	0.15	5	0.61	14	0.43	8	0.51
Kissin 1993		12	0.63	20	0.00	17	0.09	14	0.51	40	0.30	20	0.39
Kushner 1989		20	0.62	52	0.00	25	0.07	18	0.45	33	0.31	23	0.37
Luisada 1991		6	0.66	58	0.00	12	0.11	15	0.50	7	0.56	6	0.53
Lushtak 2004		44	0.57	23	0.00	38	0.06	45	0.11	40	0.18	48	0.14
Malcuzynski 1961		51	0.55	3	0.08	7	0.15	30	0.31	17	0.43	25	0.37
Magaloff 1978		60	0.51	29	0.00	60	0.06	56	0.06	44	0.10	61	0.08
Magin 1975		32	0.59	60	0.00	44	0.09	36	0.24	50	0.05	55	0.11
Michalowski 1933		79	0.42	59	0.00	79	0.05	62	0.05	59	0.05	72	0.05
Milkina 1970		19	0.62	11	0.01	19	0.11	21	0.43	37	0.31	24	0.37
Mohovich 1999		49	0.56	68	0.00	46	0.07	49	0.07	43	0.14	59	0.10
Moravec 1969		66	0.50	36	0.00	62	0.05	66	0.05	33	0.24	54	0.11
Morozova 2008		36	0.57	64	0.00	51	0.08	46	0.08	48	0.06	64	0.07
Neighaus 1950		37	0.57	65	0.00	29	0.07	32	0.30	21	0.40	26	0.35
Niedzielski 1931		53	0.54	51	0.00	37	0.06	41	0.18	24	0.36	37	0.25
Ohlsson 1999		45	0.56	43	0.00	34	0.08	31	0.30	39	0.14	40	0.20
Osinska 1989		2	0.69	6	0.03	3	0.25	2	0.68	19	0.53	1	0.60
Pachmann 1927		82	0.37	70	0.00	84	0.04	79	0.04	69	0.03	86	0.03
Paderewski 1930		71	0.47	86	0.00	61	0.05	65	0.05	17	0.46	46	0.15
Perlemuter 1992		13	0.63	28	0.00	31	0.09	24	0.43	4	0.61	7	0.51
Pierdomenico 2008		78	0.42	79	0.00	74	0.03	88	0.03	58	0.05	77	0.04
Poblocka 1999		27	0.59	27	0.00	24	0.07	17	0.47	27	0.42	16	0.44
Rabcewiczowa 1932		47	0.56	19	0.00	28	0.07	37	0.23	25	0.29	33	0.26
Rachmaninoff 1923		57	0.52	53	0.00	57	0.05	63	0.05	61	0.05	70	0.05
Rangell 2001		62	0.50	39	0.00	35	0.06	44	0.13	11	0.50	39	0.25
Richter 1976		63	0.50	76	0.00	67	0.04	81	0.04	38	0.30	57	0.11
Rosen 1989		29	0.59	41	0.00	30	0.07	23	0.43	26	0.33	21	0.38
Rosenthal 1930		83	0.36	71	0.00	83	0.04	70	0.04	50	0.04	80	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.31	50	0.00	86	0.04	73	0.04	71	0.03	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		87	0.28	89	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	84	0.02	89	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		86	0.31	90	0.00	85	0.03	83	0.03	87	0.02	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931d		88	0.26	69	0.00	88	0.03	85	0.03	86	0.02	88	0.02
Rossi 2007		69	0.49	77	0.00	66	0.04	71	0.04	22	0.36	51	0.12
Rubinstein 1939		64	0.50	83	0.00	70	0.05	68	0.05	71	0.04	78	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		73	0.46	56	0.00	71	0.04	77	0.04	54	0.05	82	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		42	0.57	42	0.00	53	0.06	57	0.06	61	0.05	73	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		28	0.59	21	0.00	42	0.06	34	0.26	36	0.24	38	0.25
Shebanova 2002		11	0.63	15	0.01	10	0.09	6	0.58	30	0.30	17	0.42
Smith 1975		40	0.57	72	0.00	48	0.07	50	0.07	36	0.21	52	0.12
Sokolov 2002		74	0.46	80	0.00	72	0.04	75	0.04	70	0.03	85	0.03
Sztompka 1959		4	0.67	2	0.10	2	0.27	3	0.65	17	0.54	2	0.59
Tomsic 1995		72	0.46	18	0.01	80	0.06	55	0.06	52	0.07	67	0.06
Uninsky 1932		22	0.60	91	0.00	27	0.07	25	0.42	18	0.48	14	0.45
Uninsky 1971		14	0.62	30	0.00	9	0.12	8	0.56	18	0.53	4	0.54
Wasowski 1980		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Zak 1937		41	0.57	87	0.00	49	0.06	53	0.06	53	0.07	65	0.06
Zak 1951		43	0.57	88	0.00	47	0.07	48	0.07	57	0.06	66	0.06
Average		1	0.76	1	0.49	1	0.48	1	0.83	42	0.20	18	0.41
Random 1		90	-0.08	47	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	34	0.16	68	0.06
Random 2		91	-0.15	63	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01
Random 3		89	-0.05	78	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	9	0.36	63	0.08

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).