Zak 1937

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		16	0.66	23	0.00	23	0.09	21	0.44	23	0.45	20	0.44
Anderszewski 2003		41	0.60	6	0.00	49	0.07	50	0.07	35	0.30	57	0.14
Ashkenazy 1981		19	0.65	37	0.00	24	0.10	30	0.32	13	0.46	30	0.38
Bacha 2000		76	0.47	55	0.00	75	0.05	67	0.05	52	0.05	78	0.05
Badura 1965		51	0.55	38	0.00	27	0.06	39	0.15	20	0.44	37	0.26
Barbosa 1983		50	0.55	4	0.00	42	0.06	43	0.13	20	0.47	38	0.25
Biret 1990		12	0.67	39	0.00	11	0.15	5	0.67	7	0.60	7	0.63
Blet 2003		61	0.52	40	0.00	65	0.04	79	0.04	30	0.22	71	0.09
Block 1995		57	0.54	41	0.00	55	0.05	61	0.05	17	0.43	52	0.15
Blumental 1952		36	0.61	11	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.09	43	0.13	68	0.11
Boshniakovich 1969		18	0.65	56	0.00	8	0.11	9	0.60	6	0.62	8	0.61
Brailowsky 1960		75	0.47	9	0.00	79	0.05	66	0.05	72	0.04	80	0.04
Bunin 1987		66	0.50	57	0.00	71	0.04	70	0.04	15	0.46	58	0.14
Bunin 1987b		70	0.49	58	0.00	72	0.07	48	0.07	17	0.45	44	0.18
Chiu 1999		45	0.59	59	0.00	47	0.05	64	0.05	6	0.50	47	0.16
Cohen 1997		84	0.39	60	0.00	82	0.03	85	0.03	53	0.05	83	0.04
Cortot 1951		79	0.44	61	0.00	81	0.05	63	0.05	43	0.11	74	0.07
Csalog 1996		59	0.53	24	0.00	57	0.06	55	0.06	17	0.41	48	0.16
Czerny 1949		28	0.62	62	0.00	32	0.09	22	0.43	27	0.46	19	0.44
Czerny 1990		10	0.68	10	0.00	16	0.09	12	0.53	16	0.49	12	0.51
Duchoud 2007		72	0.48	42	0.00	74	0.05	65	0.05	26	0.27	65	0.12
Ezaki 2006		5	0.71	43	0.00	7	0.15	8	0.62	7	0.64	5	0.63
Falvay 1989		42	0.59	25	0.00	26	0.06	42	0.13	28	0.38	41	0.22
Farrell 1958		56	0.54	26	0.00	50	0.06	58	0.06	38	0.25	62	0.12
Ferenczy 1958		54	0.54	44	0.00	63	0.04	74	0.04	25	0.39	64	0.12
Fliere 1977		8	0.69	45	0.00	10	0.13	10	0.55	25	0.35	18	0.44
Fou 1978		21	0.64	46	0.00	37	0.06	35	0.23	27	0.32	35	0.27
Francois 1956		67	0.50	47	0.00	68	0.05	68	0.05	33	0.31	67	0.12
Friedman 1923		37	0.61	3	0.00	36	0.08	36	0.21	11	0.53	33	0.33
Friedman 1923b		35	0.61	12	0.00	29	0.08	28	0.35	11	0.56	22	0.44
Friedman 1930		29	0.62	15	0.00	25	0.07	26	0.39	8	0.62	14	0.49
Garcia 2007		77	0.47	63	0.00	77	0.03	84	0.03	67	0.04	87	0.03
Garcia 2007b		65	0.51	27	0.00	66	0.04	75	0.04	50	0.05	85	0.04
Gierzod 1998		4	0.71	17	0.00	4	0.13	7	0.63	22	0.52	9	0.57
Gornostaeva 1994		55	0.54	64	0.00	41	0.07	38	0.18	31	0.29	40	0.23
Groot 1988		63	0.51	65	0.00	46	0.04	69	0.04	21	0.33	69	0.11
Harasiewicz 1955		6	0.70	13	0.00	3	0.37	4	0.70	8	0.69	2	0.69
Hatto 1993		17	0.66	48	0.00	18	0.08	19	0.45	20	0.38	29	0.41
Hatto 1997		15	0.67	66	0.00	19	0.09	20	0.45	20	0.39	27	0.42
Horowitz 1949		69	0.49	67	0.00	70	0.03	82	0.03	39	0.26	70	0.09
Indjic 1988		14	0.67	20	0.00	20	0.15	18	0.45	21	0.39	26	0.42
Kapell 1951		24	0.63	18	0.00	14	0.09	17	0.45	18	0.40	24	0.42
Kissin 1993		3	0.72	68	0.00	6	0.17	6	0.65	10	0.63	4	0.64
Kushner 1989		11	0.68	69	0.00	21	0.11	13	0.53	25	0.52	11	0.52
Luisada 1991		22	0.64	21	0.00	40	0.07	37	0.18	31	0.29	39	0.23
Lushtak 2004		26	0.63	5	0.00	17	0.10	27	0.38	13	0.52	21	0.44
Malcuzynski 1961		71	0.48	70	0.00	38	0.05	40	0.14	36	0.15	55	0.14
Magaloff 1978		58	0.53	71	0.00	67	0.04	71	0.04	71	0.04	81	0.04
Magin 1975		20	0.65	49	0.00	22	0.09	14	0.52	20	0.45	15	0.48
Michalowski 1933		80	0.44	72	0.00	73	0.07	54	0.07	24	0.34	50	0.15
Milkina 1970		25	0.63	73	0.00	15	0.10	24	0.41	30	0.43	25	0.42
Mohovich 1999		43	0.59	74	0.00	51	0.07	52	0.07	37	0.31	53	0.15
Moravec 1969		81	0.42	28	0.00	84	0.04	73	0.04	53	0.05	79	0.04
Morozova 2008		40	0.60	29	0.00	48	0.06	57	0.06	32	0.30	60	0.13
Neighaus 1950		49	0.55	22	0.00	52	0.07	51	0.07	25	0.35	49	0.16
Niedzielski 1931		60	0.52	75	0.00	60	0.07	49	0.07	29	0.28	54	0.14
Ohlsson 1999		27	0.63	76	0.00	9	0.14	16	0.48	16	0.48	16	0.48
Osinska 1989		7	0.70	77	0.00	5	0.17	3	0.70	18	0.57	6	0.63
Pachmann 1927		73	0.47	50	0.00	78	0.03	83	0.03	9	0.50	63	0.12
Paderewski 1930		83	0.41	78	0.00	80	0.04	78	0.04	44	0.11	72	0.07
Perlemuter 1992		47	0.57	2	0.00	58	0.06	56	0.06	17	0.45	46	0.16
Pierdomenico 2008		68	0.49	51	0.00	64	0.04	76	0.04	18	0.43	59	0.13
Poblocka 1999		23	0.64	79	0.00	30	0.09	25	0.40	26	0.43	28	0.41
Rabcewiczowa 1932		62	0.52	80	0.00	61	0.08	47	0.08	65	0.04	77	0.06
Rachmaninoff 1923		46	0.58	81	0.00	43	0.06	41	0.14	27	0.28	43	0.20
Rangell 2001		74	0.47	30	0.00	69	0.04	72	0.04	23	0.39	66	0.12
Richter 1976		52	0.55	31	0.00	62	0.08	46	0.08	32	0.42	45	0.18
Rosen 1989		31	0.62	32	0.00	39	0.05	34	0.23	21	0.37	34	0.29
Rosenthal 1930		82	0.42	82	0.00	83	0.04	81	0.04	60	0.04	82	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		87	0.37	33	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	61	0.04	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		85	0.38	52	0.00	86	0.03	87	0.03	54	0.05	84	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		86	0.38	83	0.00	87	0.03	86	0.03	69	0.03	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		88	0.37	8	0.00	88	0.04	77	0.04	77	0.03	88	0.03
Rossi 2007		78	0.46	53	0.00	76	0.04	80	0.04	46	0.09	76	0.06
Rubinstein 1939		30	0.62	34	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.11	13	0.41	42	0.21
Rubinstein 1952		38	0.60	84	0.00	33	0.08	32	0.26	19	0.47	32	0.35
Rubinstein 1966		9	0.68	7	0.00	13	0.13	15	0.51	11	0.59	10	0.55
Schilhawsky 1960		32	0.62	85	0.00	34	0.08	31	0.28	24	0.44	31	0.35
Shebanova 2002		13	0.67	86	0.00	12	0.15	11	0.54	18	0.46	13	0.50
Smith 1975		44	0.59	87	0.00	54	0.05	62	0.05	29	0.27	61	0.12
Sokolov 2002		39	0.60	14	0.00	31	0.07	29	0.34	7	0.53	23	0.42
Sztompka 1959		34	0.61	16	0.00	35	0.06	33	0.26	37	0.26	36	0.26
Tomsic 1995		64	0.51	88	0.00	56	0.05	60	0.05	28	0.39	56	0.14
Uninsky 1932		53	0.54	54	0.00	53	0.06	59	0.06	29	0.39	51	0.15
Uninsky 1971		33	0.61	35	0.00	28	0.07	23	0.42	19	0.51	17	0.46
Wasowski 1980		48	0.57	89	0.00	59	0.07	53	0.07	53	0.06	75	0.06
Zak 1937		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Zak 1951		1	0.98	1	0.99	1	0.98	1	0.99	1	0.99	1	0.99
Average		2	0.80	19	0.00	2	0.68	2	0.84	18	0.53	3	0.67
Random 1		91	-0.08	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	52	0.04	91	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.03	36	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	50	0.04	90	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.06	91	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	28	0.24	73	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).