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		40	0.62	49	0.00	28	0.05	40	0.15	37	0.13	42	0.14
Anderszewski 2003		43	0.61	13	0.02	24	0.06	31	0.19	16	0.43	18	0.29
Ashkenazy 1981		3	0.78	1	0.23	1	0.23	1	0.60	2	0.59	1	0.59
Bacha 2000		27	0.67	52	0.00	48	0.04	61	0.04	10	0.47	41	0.14
Badura 1965		75	0.47	37	0.00	66	0.03	70	0.03	57	0.04	88	0.03
Barbosa 1983		76	0.47	84	0.00	76	0.04	63	0.04	60	0.04	73	0.04
Biret 1990		10	0.72	77	0.00	16	0.07	13	0.33	14	0.34	12	0.33
Blet 2003		53	0.57	45	0.00	72	0.03	77	0.03	71	0.03	85	0.03
Block 1995		78	0.46	27	0.01	82	0.02	85	0.02	61	0.04	89	0.03
Blumental 1952		55	0.56	25	0.01	22	0.06	23	0.22	2	0.45	16	0.31
Boshniakovich 1969		41	0.62	19	0.01	60	0.05	48	0.05	50	0.05	69	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		48	0.59	44	0.00	69	0.03	81	0.03	45	0.09	67	0.05
Bunin 1987		52	0.57	85	0.00	75	0.05	49	0.05	66	0.04	75	0.04
Bunin 1987b		51	0.57	70	0.00	74	0.03	79	0.03	64	0.04	82	0.03
Chiu 1999		79	0.44	75	0.00	61	0.03	73	0.03	41	0.12	59	0.06
Cohen 1997		74	0.47	71	0.00	70	0.03	83	0.03	17	0.36	47	0.10
Cortot 1951		32	0.66	4	0.06	20	0.07	18	0.26	21	0.36	17	0.31
Csalog 1996		58	0.54	42	0.00	83	0.03	82	0.03	27	0.30	51	0.09
Czerny 1949		15	0.70	3	0.07	3	0.13	4	0.44	10	0.52	2	0.48
Czerny 1990		21	0.69	8	0.04	9	0.08	9	0.36	28	0.24	19	0.29
Duchoud 2007		28	0.66	60	0.00	43	0.06	41	0.13	36	0.21	38	0.17
Ezaki 2006		18	0.69	48	0.00	35	0.08	24	0.22	58	0.04	49	0.09
Falvay 1989		29	0.66	5	0.05	5	0.11	15	0.32	23	0.30	14	0.31
Farrell 1958		20	0.69	59	0.00	58	0.04	55	0.04	29	0.18	52	0.08
Ferenczy 1958		56	0.55	55	0.00	65	0.03	66	0.03	41	0.12	62	0.06
Fliere 1977		11	0.72	53	0.00	37	0.05	36	0.17	48	0.05	50	0.09
Fou 1978		70	0.49	54	0.00	50	0.03	65	0.03	51	0.06	71	0.04
Francois 1956		24	0.67	90	0.00	15	0.07	16	0.29	20	0.30	20	0.29
Friedman 1923		88	0.21	34	0.00	63	0.03	80	0.03	39	0.18	58	0.07
Friedman 1923b		87	0.22	86	0.00	64	0.03	64	0.03	39	0.19	54	0.08
Friedman 1930		77	0.46	11	0.02	39	0.06	30	0.19	15	0.40	21	0.28
Garcia 2007		82	0.36	82	0.00	77	0.03	68	0.03	61	0.04	87	0.03
Garcia 2007b		85	0.27	83	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	44	0.09	76	0.04
Gierzod 1998		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Gornostaeva 1994		16	0.70	16	0.02	46	0.04	53	0.04	41	0.16	55	0.08
Groot 1988		36	0.63	30	0.00	52	0.04	50	0.04	45	0.08	64	0.06
Harasiewicz 1955		72	0.48	72	0.00	34	0.08	27	0.21	49	0.05	48	0.10
Hatto 1993		73	0.48	56	0.00	31	0.05	39	0.16	15	0.36	31	0.24
Hatto 1997		62	0.53	35	0.00	23	0.06	28	0.21	22	0.35	24	0.27
Horowitz 1949		50	0.58	91	0.00	68	0.03	71	0.03	50	0.05	72	0.04
Indjic 1988		69	0.49	38	0.00	30	0.05	37	0.17	20	0.36	30	0.25
Kapell 1951		7	0.73	10	0.02	17	0.06	5	0.43	20	0.42	6	0.42
Kissin 1993		54	0.57	15	0.02	13	0.07	42	0.12	36	0.22	40	0.16
Kushner 1989		9	0.73	61	0.00	27	0.05	22	0.22	25	0.30	25	0.26
Luisada 1991		44	0.61	29	0.00	12	0.07	32	0.19	29	0.25	33	0.22
Lushtak 2004		37	0.62	18	0.02	21	0.06	17	0.26	37	0.16	36	0.20
Malcuzynski 1961		4	0.77	32	0.00	14	0.08	12	0.35	20	0.31	11	0.33
Magaloff 1978		12	0.71	40	0.00	10	0.06	19	0.25	32	0.25	29	0.25
Magin 1975		59	0.54	41	0.00	53	0.04	52	0.04	45	0.09	60	0.06
Michalowski 1933		67	0.49	50	0.00	25	0.06	10	0.36	13	0.44	9	0.40
Milkina 1970		39	0.62	64	0.00	51	0.05	46	0.05	45	0.14	53	0.08
Mohovich 1999		30	0.66	20	0.01	49	0.04	54	0.04	79	0.03	90	0.03
Moravec 1969		14	0.71	12	0.02	8	0.07	11	0.35	3	0.54	5	0.43
Morozova 2008		71	0.48	28	0.00	57	0.04	56	0.04	46	0.06	68	0.05
Neighaus 1950		5	0.75	62	0.00	7	0.08	8	0.36	21	0.36	10	0.36
Niedzielski 1931		49	0.58	46	0.00	47	0.04	57	0.04	11	0.37	44	0.12
Ohlsson 1999		2	0.78	6	0.04	4	0.11	3	0.45	11	0.49	3	0.47
Osinska 1989		22	0.68	73	0.00	29	0.05	25	0.21	23	0.30	28	0.25
Pachmann 1927		83	0.35	67	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	58	0.04	84	0.03
Paderewski 1930		23	0.68	26	0.01	36	0.04	34	0.18	15	0.37	26	0.26
Perlemuter 1992		68	0.49	65	0.00	71	0.03	67	0.03	74	0.03	78	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		46	0.60	87	0.00	56	0.04	62	0.04	39	0.13	56	0.07
Poblocka 1999		8	0.73	7	0.04	18	0.08	7	0.38	16	0.43	8	0.40
Rabcewiczowa 1932		33	0.65	31	0.00	38	0.07	21	0.23	16	0.41	15	0.31
Rachmaninoff 1923		81	0.42	79	0.00	73	0.04	60	0.04	71	0.03	80	0.03
Rangell 2001		42	0.61	39	0.00	59	0.05	47	0.05	49	0.06	70	0.05
Richter 1976		80	0.43	51	0.00	86	0.03	78	0.03	84	0.03	83	0.03
Rosen 1989		6	0.73	23	0.01	19	0.08	14	0.32	8	0.54	7	0.42
Rosenthal 1930		31	0.66	76	0.00	55	0.04	51	0.04	28	0.28	45	0.11
Rosenthal 1931		66	0.49	47	0.00	80	0.04	58	0.04	40	0.12	57	0.07
Rosenthal 1931b		65	0.51	66	0.00	78	0.03	72	0.03	39	0.13	65	0.06
Rosenthal 1931c		26	0.67	17	0.02	45	0.05	45	0.09	22	0.33	39	0.17
Rosenthal 1931d		57	0.54	63	0.00	79	0.03	69	0.03	37	0.13	63	0.06
Rossi 2007		89	0.17	89	0.00	88	0.02	84	0.02	52	0.04	79	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		84	0.30	43	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	51	0.05	81	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		60	0.53	57	0.00	62	0.03	74	0.03	40	0.13	66	0.06
Rubinstein 1966		61	0.53	74	0.00	81	0.03	75	0.03	57	0.05	74	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		17	0.69	33	0.00	26	0.05	20	0.24	24	0.29	27	0.26
Shebanova 2002		19	0.69	80	0.00	33	0.06	33	0.19	21	0.42	22	0.28
Smith 1975		13	0.71	21	0.01	6	0.09	6	0.40	24	0.26	13	0.32
Sokolov 2002		25	0.67	14	0.02	44	0.05	43	0.12	43	0.15	43	0.13
Sztompka 1959		34	0.64	24	0.01	40	0.05	29	0.20	21	0.37	23	0.27
Tomsic 1995		38	0.62	68	0.00	54	0.04	59	0.04	44	0.09	61	0.06
Uninsky 1932		64	0.52	22	0.01	41	0.07	35	0.18	31	0.29	32	0.23
Uninsky 1971		45	0.60	36	0.00	42	0.04	44	0.11	32	0.28	37	0.18
Wasowski 1980		63	0.52	69	0.00	67	0.03	76	0.03	67	0.04	77	0.03
Zak 1937		35	0.64	88	0.00	32	0.06	38	0.17	31	0.24	35	0.20
Zak 1951		47	0.60	9	0.03	11	0.08	26	0.21	34	0.22	34	0.21
Average		1	0.83	2	0.11	2	0.20	2	0.58	18	0.33	4	0.44
Random 1		91	-0.10	81	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	86	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		90	-0.05	58	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	48	0.04	86	0.03
Random 3		86	0.24	78	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	5	0.49	46	0.10

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).