Gierzod 1998

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		49	0.52	68	0.00	53	0.06	54	0.06	4	0.59	51	0.19
Anderszewski 2003		40	0.54	69	0.00	29	0.06	28	0.35	18	0.52	31	0.43
Ashkenazy 1981		52	0.51	41	0.00	67	0.03	79	0.03	15	0.44	73	0.11
Bacha 2000		80	0.37	86	0.00	83	0.02	88	0.02	49	0.05	90	0.03
Badura 1965		71	0.42	89	0.00	72	0.04	66	0.04	27	0.34	65	0.12
Barbosa 1983		20	0.61	7	0.01	16	0.18	14	0.54	8	0.66	17	0.60
Biret 1990		37	0.55	11	0.01	17	0.11	21	0.47	10	0.56	24	0.51
Blet 2003		66	0.43	57	0.00	77	0.03	84	0.03	23	0.26	80	0.09
Block 1995		78	0.38	25	0.00	57	0.05	60	0.05	31	0.28	66	0.12
Blumental 1952		43	0.53	9	0.01	44	0.08	43	0.19	23	0.48	44	0.30
Boshniakovich 1969		13	0.64	3	0.04	5	0.18	11	0.60	3	0.72	10	0.66
Brailowsky 1960		57	0.48	53	0.00	55	0.08	48	0.08	27	0.45	49	0.19
Bunin 1987		63	0.46	83	0.00	71	0.04	68	0.04	31	0.21	81	0.09
Bunin 1987b		65	0.44	78	0.00	70	0.04	69	0.04	32	0.24	76	0.10
Chiu 1999		51	0.51	58	0.00	54	0.06	53	0.06	5	0.52	52	0.18
Cohen 1997		76	0.39	79	0.00	79	0.04	70	0.04	18	0.29	74	0.11
Cortot 1951		87	0.27	87	0.00	87	0.03	85	0.03	54	0.06	88	0.04
Csalog 1996		42	0.54	77	0.00	32	0.07	27	0.36	8	0.60	29	0.46
Czerny 1949		15	0.63	4	0.01	12	0.15	16	0.52	9	0.70	18	0.60
Czerny 1990		6	0.66	10	0.01	7	0.15	5	0.63	11	0.74	6	0.68
Duchoud 2007		79	0.38	65	0.00	86	0.04	72	0.04	39	0.27	78	0.10
Ezaki 2006		24	0.59	32	0.00	28	0.07	23	0.45	13	0.56	25	0.50
Falvay 1989		7	0.66	44	0.00	6	0.17	6	0.63	7	0.69	8	0.66
Farrell 1958		74	0.42	45	0.00	69	0.04	75	0.04	44	0.16	84	0.08
Ferenczy 1958		54	0.50	28	0.00	64	0.04	67	0.04	16	0.54	59	0.15
Fliere 1977		5	0.66	46	0.00	4	0.19	4	0.65	2	0.72	4	0.68
Fou 1978		16	0.62	47	0.00	20	0.10	19	0.51	6	0.57	20	0.54
Francois 1956		68	0.43	23	0.00	78	0.03	76	0.03	30	0.27	83	0.09
Friedman 1923		86	0.32	43	0.00	85	0.03	83	0.03	52	0.05	89	0.04
Friedman 1923b		84	0.34	74	0.00	84	0.03	86	0.03	52	0.06	87	0.04
Friedman 1930		70	0.43	37	0.00	61	0.05	58	0.05	12	0.52	55	0.16
Garcia 2007		69	0.43	59	0.00	73	0.05	59	0.05	22	0.44	60	0.15
Garcia 2007b		59	0.47	75	0.00	59	0.04	71	0.04	29	0.33	75	0.11
Gierzod 1998		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Gornostaeva 1994		27	0.59	50	0.00	35	0.06	26	0.39	4	0.65	26	0.50
Groot 1988		67	0.43	36	0.00	58	0.05	57	0.05	38	0.16	82	0.09
Harasiewicz 1955		3	0.71	5	0.01	3	0.35	3	0.81	3	0.82	3	0.81
Hatto 1993		14	0.63	26	0.00	10	0.16	9	0.62	6	0.72	7	0.67
Hatto 1997		12	0.64	12	0.01	9	0.10	8	0.62	6	0.70	9	0.66
Horowitz 1949		83	0.36	88	0.00	82	0.02	87	0.02	21	0.39	79	0.09
Indjic 1988		8	0.64	21	0.00	8	0.12	7	0.63	5	0.73	5	0.68
Kapell 1951		28	0.58	60	0.00	40	0.08	40	0.23	18	0.56	40	0.36
Kissin 1993		9	0.64	70	0.00	15	0.14	15	0.52	5	0.75	12	0.62
Kushner 1989		11	0.64	13	0.00	13	0.11	12	0.60	9	0.63	14	0.61
Luisada 1991		38	0.55	80	0.00	42	0.08	42	0.20	10	0.60	41	0.35
Lushtak 2004		29	0.58	34	0.00	21	0.09	25	0.44	8	0.61	23	0.52
Malcuzynski 1961		41	0.54	62	0.00	41	0.11	32	0.34	22	0.48	37	0.40
Magaloff 1978		32	0.57	55	0.00	39	0.06	37	0.28	6	0.64	32	0.42
Magin 1975		19	0.61	15	0.00	19	0.11	17	0.52	2	0.72	13	0.61
Michalowski 1933		88	0.24	63	0.00	88	0.03	77	0.03	29	0.23	85	0.08
Milkina 1970		4	0.66	8	0.01	11	0.20	10	0.60	9	0.62	15	0.61
Mohovich 1999		39	0.54	17	0.00	24	0.07	33	0.34	24	0.46	39	0.40
Moravec 1969		35	0.56	48	0.00	45	0.08	45	0.16	15	0.51	45	0.29
Morozova 2008		48	0.53	64	0.00	48	0.07	50	0.07	11	0.57	48	0.20
Neighaus 1950		58	0.47	51	0.00	52	0.05	55	0.05	14	0.49	57	0.16
Niedzielski 1931		82	0.36	30	0.00	74	0.04	62	0.04	18	0.38	63	0.12
Ohlsson 1999		44	0.53	81	0.00	49	0.08	46	0.08	7	0.58	46	0.22
Osinska 1989		2	0.73	2	0.05	2	0.25	2	0.81	3	0.81	2	0.81
Pachmann 1927		72	0.42	18	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	18	0.47	64	0.12
Paderewski 1930		85	0.33	84	0.00	80	0.03	78	0.03	13	0.44	71	0.11
Perlemuter 1992		64	0.45	66	0.00	76	0.03	81	0.03	21	0.40	69	0.11
Pierdomenico 2008		50	0.52	33	0.00	51	0.06	51	0.06	15	0.54	53	0.18
Poblocka 1999		30	0.57	31	0.00	23	0.08	34	0.33	19	0.48	36	0.40
Rabcewiczowa 1932		53	0.50	49	0.00	43	0.07	41	0.21	15	0.43	43	0.30
Rachmaninoff 1923		73	0.42	67	0.00	56	0.07	49	0.07	24	0.43	54	0.17
Rangell 2001		46	0.53	29	0.00	50	0.05	56	0.05	17	0.51	56	0.16
Richter 1976		26	0.59	20	0.00	27	0.06	31	0.34	7	0.68	28	0.48
Rosen 1989		17	0.62	35	0.00	26	0.06	29	0.35	3	0.68	27	0.49
Rosenthal 1930		60	0.46	56	0.00	68	0.04	73	0.04	22	0.47	61	0.14
Rosenthal 1931		75	0.40	72	0.00	65	0.03	80	0.03	26	0.39	72	0.11
Rosenthal 1931b		77	0.38	85	0.00	75	0.04	64	0.04	22	0.38	68	0.12
Rosenthal 1931c		61	0.46	42	0.00	63	0.04	61	0.04	19	0.42	62	0.13
Rosenthal 1931d		81	0.37	76	0.00	66	0.04	74	0.04	28	0.34	67	0.12
Rossi 2007		56	0.48	27	0.00	62	0.04	65	0.04	6	0.54	58	0.15
Rubinstein 1939		55	0.49	82	0.00	60	0.04	63	0.04	34	0.30	70	0.11
Rubinstein 1952		22	0.60	54	0.00	30	0.06	30	0.35	23	0.48	35	0.41
Rubinstein 1966		10	0.64	19	0.00	14	0.14	13	0.57	14	0.65	16	0.61
Schilhawsky 1960		33	0.57	22	0.00	38	0.06	44	0.19	15	0.53	42	0.32
Shebanova 2002		36	0.55	39	0.00	36	0.06	39	0.27	7	0.60	38	0.40
Smith 1975		34	0.56	40	0.00	37	0.06	36	0.28	7	0.63	33	0.42
Sokolov 2002		45	0.53	24	0.00	47	0.06	52	0.06	4	0.69	47	0.20
Sztompka 1959		31	0.57	38	0.00	25	0.07	35	0.33	15	0.59	30	0.44
Tomsic 1995		47	0.53	52	0.00	46	0.08	47	0.08	17	0.47	50	0.19
Uninsky 1932		62	0.46	16	0.00	34	0.07	38	0.27	16	0.61	34	0.41
Uninsky 1971		18	0.61	6	0.01	18	0.10	18	0.52	3	0.76	11	0.63
Wasowski 1980		25	0.59	73	0.00	22	0.08	20	0.48	6	0.59	22	0.53
Zak 1937		21	0.60	61	0.00	33	0.07	24	0.45	9	0.65	21	0.54
Zak 1951		23	0.60	14	0.00	31	0.07	22	0.47	8	0.67	19	0.56
Average		1	0.81	1	0.75	1	0.74	1	0.91	3	0.78	1	0.84
Random 1		91	-0.08	71	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	79	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	0.07	90	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	8	0.46	77	0.10
Random 3		90	-0.01	91	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	29	0.22	86	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).