Zak 1951

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		17	0.65	52	0.00	23	0.09	17	0.46	22	0.45	19	0.45
Anderszewski 2003		43	0.58	53	0.00	50	0.07	49	0.07	37	0.29	57	0.14
Ashkenazy 1981		20	0.65	54	0.00	24	0.10	30	0.32	12	0.46	31	0.38
Bacha 2000		74	0.46	55	0.00	75	0.05	71	0.05	57	0.04	80	0.04
Badura 1965		48	0.56	56	0.00	26	0.07	37	0.15	19	0.46	39	0.26
Barbosa 1983		51	0.55	57	0.00	41	0.05	39	0.14	19	0.49	38	0.26
Biret 1990		11	0.67	15	0.00	6	0.12	4	0.67	5	0.63	4	0.65
Blet 2003		65	0.51	58	0.00	69	0.05	70	0.05	32	0.20	69	0.10
Block 1995		60	0.52	59	0.00	59	0.05	64	0.05	19	0.39	58	0.14
Blumental 1952		36	0.60	21	0.00	47	0.06	53	0.06	41	0.13	71	0.09
Boshniakovich 1969		19	0.65	60	0.00	8	0.12	9	0.58	5	0.62	8	0.60
Brailowsky 1960		77	0.45	7	0.00	80	0.05	66	0.05	69	0.05	77	0.05
Bunin 1987		64	0.51	61	0.00	68	0.06	54	0.06	11	0.49	48	0.17
Bunin 1987b		68	0.50	34	0.00	67	0.03	85	0.03	10	0.48	66	0.12
Chiu 1999		44	0.58	62	0.00	48	0.07	48	0.07	3	0.52	43	0.19
Cohen 1997		84	0.39	63	0.00	82	0.04	82	0.04	39	0.12	74	0.07
Cortot 1951		80	0.42	64	0.00	81	0.04	79	0.04	59	0.05	84	0.04
Csalog 1996		55	0.54	2	0.00	54	0.05	63	0.05	15	0.43	52	0.15
Czerny 1949		32	0.61	3	0.00	33	0.08	24	0.41	28	0.46	20	0.43
Czerny 1990		12	0.67	35	0.00	19	0.10	16	0.47	20	0.47	17	0.47
Duchoud 2007		73	0.48	36	0.00	74	0.05	60	0.05	18	0.32	64	0.13
Ezaki 2006		3	0.71	37	0.00	7	0.13	7	0.61	6	0.66	5	0.63
Falvay 1989		46	0.58	16	0.00	29	0.06	44	0.11	29	0.37	42	0.20
Farrell 1958		50	0.56	65	0.00	51	0.06	52	0.06	36	0.30	62	0.13
Ferenczy 1958		62	0.52	38	0.00	70	0.05	68	0.05	37	0.26	68	0.11
Fliere 1977		8	0.68	17	0.00	14	0.13	12	0.52	29	0.31	26	0.40
Fou 1978		26	0.63	39	0.00	43	0.06	40	0.13	33	0.24	44	0.18
Francois 1956		67	0.50	66	0.00	64	0.04	81	0.04	29	0.40	65	0.13
Friedman 1923		39	0.60	4	0.00	40	0.05	38	0.15	12	0.52	35	0.28
Friedman 1923b		34	0.61	12	0.00	34	0.08	33	0.29	13	0.55	28	0.40
Friedman 1930		29	0.62	40	0.00	25	0.09	23	0.41	5	0.65	13	0.52
Garcia 2007		72	0.48	41	0.00	76	0.04	84	0.04	58	0.05	82	0.04
Garcia 2007b		63	0.51	42	0.00	65	0.04	75	0.04	59	0.04	86	0.04
Gierzod 1998		4	0.71	22	0.00	4	0.16	6	0.63	21	0.52	10	0.57
Gornostaeva 1994		54	0.54	10	0.00	37	0.06	36	0.19	21	0.37	37	0.27
Groot 1988		57	0.53	23	0.00	42	0.05	41	0.13	16	0.38	41	0.22
Harasiewicz 1955		6	0.69	67	0.00	3	0.24	3	0.67	10	0.66	3	0.66
Hatto 1993		15	0.66	43	0.00	22	0.17	21	0.45	22	0.37	25	0.41
Hatto 1997		13	0.67	18	0.00	20	0.10	19	0.45	21	0.38	24	0.41
Horowitz 1949		70	0.48	68	0.00	73	0.05	61	0.05	38	0.27	67	0.12
Indjic 1988		14	0.66	69	0.00	21	0.10	20	0.45	22	0.38	23	0.41
Kapell 1951		25	0.63	70	0.00	18	0.09	22	0.43	17	0.40	22	0.41
Kissin 1993		5	0.70	24	0.00	12	0.14	8	0.59	13	0.61	7	0.60
Kushner 1989		9	0.68	25	0.00	15	0.09	10	0.56	16	0.58	9	0.57
Luisada 1991		21	0.64	71	0.00	36	0.09	34	0.26	21	0.35	34	0.30
Lushtak 2004		24	0.63	44	0.00	16	0.10	25	0.41	9	0.57	16	0.48
Malcuzynski 1961		71	0.48	19	0.00	38	0.05	42	0.13	33	0.17	51	0.15
Magaloff 1978		58	0.52	72	0.00	66	0.04	83	0.04	51	0.06	79	0.05
Magin 1975		16	0.66	45	0.00	17	0.10	11	0.56	17	0.49	12	0.52
Michalowski 1933		79	0.44	73	0.00	72	0.05	69	0.05	25	0.34	63	0.13
Milkina 1970		22	0.63	13	0.00	11	0.12	18	0.46	27	0.45	18	0.45
Mohovich 1999		41	0.59	74	0.00	49	0.07	51	0.07	29	0.41	47	0.17
Moravec 1969		82	0.41	26	0.00	84	0.04	74	0.04	75	0.03	87	0.03
Morozova 2008		35	0.61	8	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	28	0.34	45	0.18
Neighaus 1950		53	0.54	75	0.00	52	0.06	58	0.06	26	0.31	60	0.14
Niedzielski 1931		59	0.52	76	0.00	61	0.07	50	0.07	31	0.27	55	0.14
Ohlsson 1999		23	0.63	77	0.00	9	0.15	14	0.51	13	0.52	14	0.51
Osinska 1989		7	0.68	9	0.00	5	0.11	5	0.67	16	0.57	6	0.62
Pachmann 1927		76	0.45	27	0.00	79	0.05	67	0.05	7	0.50	49	0.16
Paderewski 1930		83	0.41	28	0.00	78	0.04	78	0.04	37	0.17	72	0.08
Perlemuter 1992		49	0.56	78	0.00	56	0.05	65	0.05	15	0.46	50	0.15
Pierdomenico 2008		69	0.50	79	0.00	63	0.04	73	0.04	13	0.48	54	0.14
Poblocka 1999		28	0.63	80	0.00	31	0.06	27	0.35	29	0.41	30	0.38
Rabcewiczowa 1932		61	0.52	29	0.00	60	0.07	47	0.07	56	0.05	76	0.06
Rachmaninoff 1923		45	0.58	30	0.00	39	0.05	35	0.21	21	0.36	36	0.27
Rangell 2001		75	0.46	46	0.00	71	0.05	72	0.05	22	0.39	59	0.14
Richter 1976		52	0.54	5	0.00	62	0.07	46	0.07	30	0.42	46	0.17
Rosen 1989		27	0.63	47	0.00	30	0.06	29	0.32	16	0.40	33	0.36
Rosenthal 1930		81	0.42	14	0.00	83	0.04	77	0.04	61	0.03	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		88	0.36	20	0.00	87	0.03	86	0.03	50	0.06	81	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		85	0.37	31	0.00	86	0.03	87	0.03	52	0.05	85	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		86	0.37	6	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	58	0.04	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		87	0.36	81	0.00	88	0.04	80	0.04	56	0.05	83	0.04
Rossi 2007		78	0.45	82	0.00	77	0.04	76	0.04	48	0.07	78	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		30	0.62	48	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.12	12	0.42	40	0.22
Rubinstein 1952		33	0.61	83	0.00	27	0.07	32	0.30	21	0.45	32	0.37
Rubinstein 1966		10	0.68	84	0.00	10	0.11	15	0.50	9	0.62	11	0.56
Schilhawsky 1960		31	0.62	11	0.00	28	0.06	28	0.33	23	0.45	29	0.39
Shebanova 2002		18	0.65	85	0.00	13	0.12	13	0.52	21	0.44	15	0.48
Smith 1975		42	0.59	32	0.00	53	0.06	55	0.06	26	0.30	61	0.13
Sokolov 2002		37	0.60	86	0.00	35	0.08	31	0.30	8	0.53	27	0.40
Sztompka 1959		40	0.60	87	0.00	46	0.06	59	0.06	45	0.15	70	0.09
Tomsic 1995		66	0.50	49	0.00	55	0.05	62	0.05	27	0.40	56	0.14
Uninsky 1932		56	0.53	50	0.00	57	0.06	56	0.06	31	0.37	53	0.15
Uninsky 1971		38	0.60	51	0.00	32	0.07	26	0.36	23	0.48	21	0.42
Wasowski 1980		47	0.57	88	0.00	58	0.06	57	0.06	48	0.07	75	0.06
Zak 1937		1	0.98	1	0.99	1	0.98	1	0.99	1	0.99	1	0.99
Zak 1951		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Average		2	0.80	33	0.00	2	0.71	2	0.84	13	0.56	2	0.69
Random 1		91	-0.08	89	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	54	0.04	91	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.02	90	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	53	0.04	90	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.05	91	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	17	0.31	73	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).