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		16	0.34	8	0.03	15	0.15	14	0.64	18	0.51	14	0.57
Anderszewski 2003		8	0.39	14	0.01	8	0.16	7	0.73	2	0.74	4	0.73
Ashkenazy 1981		30	0.25	53	0.00	32	0.10	23	0.46	58	0.06	32	0.17
Bacha 2000		1	0.49	2	0.21	2	0.26	1	0.84	1	0.82	2	0.83
Badura 1965		13	0.36	5	0.06	13	0.15	17	0.62	3	0.69	10	0.65
Barbosa 1983		43	0.20	87	0.00	57	0.06	55	0.06	57	0.05	62	0.05
Biret 1990		91	-0.18	88	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01
Blet 2003		79	0.01	21	0.00	80	0.02	87	0.02	75	0.03	88	0.02
Block 1995		18	0.32	24	0.00	18	0.12	16	0.62	35	0.35	18	0.47
Blumental 1952		15	0.35	35	0.00	14	0.15	11	0.68	12	0.58	12	0.63
Boshniakovich 1969		23	0.31	31	0.00	21	0.16	19	0.57	42	0.16	26	0.30
Brailowsky 1960		9	0.39	9	0.02	11	0.16	12	0.66	6	0.68	7	0.67
Bunin 1987		76	0.07	73	0.00	79	0.02	85	0.02	80	0.03	90	0.02
Bunin 1987b		74	0.07	44	0.00	78	0.02	83	0.02	79	0.03	85	0.02
Chiu 1999		65	0.15	62	0.00	66	0.05	60	0.05	75	0.04	69	0.04
Cohen 1997		45	0.20	63	0.00	46	0.05	62	0.05	37	0.34	39	0.13
Cortot 1951		17	0.32	36	0.00	25	0.08	22	0.51	20	0.53	16	0.52
Csalog 1996		88	-0.03	79	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	87	0.02	87	0.02
Czerny 1949		75	0.07	64	0.00	73	0.04	67	0.04	53	0.06	64	0.05
Czerny 1990		84	0.00	80	0.00	82	0.03	73	0.03	76	0.03	79	0.03
Duchoud 2007		86	-0.01	89	0.00	83	0.02	79	0.02	87	0.02	89	0.02
Ezaki 2006		6	0.42	17	0.00	10	0.18	8	0.72	23	0.59	8	0.65
Falvay 1989		53	0.18	39	0.00	58	0.06	52	0.06	75	0.03	70	0.04
Farrell 1958		78	0.02	28	0.00	74	0.03	76	0.03	89	0.01	84	0.02
Ferenczy 1958		25	0.29	15	0.01	37	0.06	37	0.25	21	0.71	21	0.42
Fliere 1977		37	0.22	16	0.01	40	0.08	35	0.26	76	0.04	41	0.10
Fou 1978		12	0.36	12	0.01	16	0.17	15	0.64	23	0.42	15	0.52
Francois 1956		77	0.03	60	0.00	76	0.02	78	0.02	66	0.04	80	0.03
Friedman 1923		64	0.15	61	0.00	68	0.04	70	0.04	66	0.05	75	0.04
Friedman 1923b		67	0.13	65	0.00	71	0.04	69	0.04	72	0.04	74	0.04
Friedman 1930		61	0.15	54	0.00	65	0.05	61	0.05	68	0.04	73	0.04
Garcia 2007		57	0.17	25	0.00	29	0.07	33	0.29	40	0.23	29	0.26
Garcia 2007b		87	-0.02	55	0.00	81	0.02	80	0.02	63	0.05	81	0.03
Gierzod 1998		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Gornostaeva 1994		31	0.25	34	0.00	27	0.08	28	0.40	27	0.45	22	0.42
Groot 1988		54	0.17	19	0.00	31	0.09	34	0.27	70	0.05	40	0.12
Harasiewicz 1955		36	0.23	56	0.00	48	0.05	63	0.05	57	0.05	65	0.05
Hatto 1993		41	0.21	67	0.00	51	0.08	48	0.08	59	0.07	50	0.07
Hatto 1997		66	0.13	74	0.00	61	0.06	53	0.06	66	0.04	63	0.05
Horowitz 1949		83	0.00	47	0.00	85	0.02	84	0.02	83	0.03	86	0.02
Indjic 1988		60	0.16	90	0.00	56	0.05	64	0.05	61	0.06	61	0.05
Kapell 1951		85	0.00	91	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	77	0.04	76	0.03
Kissin 1993		42	0.21	33	0.00	54	0.08	47	0.08	55	0.07	48	0.07
Kushner 1989		7	0.41	29	0.00	9	0.17	9	0.72	13	0.58	9	0.65
Luisada 1991		71	0.09	40	0.00	72	0.03	74	0.03	67	0.05	66	0.04
Lushtak 2004		11	0.37	11	0.01	12	0.15	13	0.65	9	0.59	13	0.62
Malcuzynski 1961		4	0.46	4	0.09	4	0.35	5	0.77	10	0.60	6	0.68
Magaloff 1978		20	0.31	45	0.00	20	0.17	21	0.54	33	0.36	19	0.44
Magin 1975		68	0.12	81	0.00	63	0.06	56	0.06	58	0.06	51	0.06
Michalowski 1933		73	0.07	68	0.00	75	0.03	75	0.03	75	0.04	77	0.03
Milkina 1970		70	0.10	82	0.00	69	0.04	72	0.04	58	0.05	72	0.04
Mohovich 1999		2	0.48	3	0.16	3	0.26	4	0.78	9	0.64	5	0.71
Moravec 1969		49	0.19	13	0.01	50	0.06	54	0.06	72	0.04	57	0.05
Morozova 2008		19	0.31	23	0.00	17	0.14	24	0.44	49	0.06	34	0.16
Neighaus 1950		34	0.23	69	0.00	42	0.08	40	0.20	67	0.04	45	0.09
Niedzielski 1931		27	0.26	41	0.00	34	0.10	31	0.37	48	0.07	33	0.16
Ohlsson 1999		44	0.20	83	0.00	53	0.07	49	0.07	83	0.03	60	0.05
Osinska 1989		62	0.15	84	0.00	64	0.05	66	0.05	65	0.04	67	0.04
Pachmann 1927		35	0.23	75	0.00	44	0.07	43	0.15	70	0.05	43	0.09
Paderewski 1930		47	0.20	85	0.00	52	0.08	46	0.08	67	0.05	53	0.06
Perlemuter 1992		32	0.25	42	0.00	33	0.11	29	0.40	41	0.27	25	0.33
Pierdomenico 2008		72	0.09	18	0.00	70	0.04	68	0.04	68	0.04	71	0.04
Poblocka 1999		58	0.17	50	0.00	38	0.06	42	0.17	73	0.04	46	0.08
Rabcewiczowa 1932		40	0.21	66	0.00	43	0.07	44	0.14	34	0.33	30	0.21
Rachmaninoff 1923		89	-0.05	32	0.00	84	0.02	82	0.02	87	0.02	83	0.02
Rangell 2001		33	0.23	30	0.00	41	0.08	39	0.21	67	0.05	42	0.10
Richter 1976		50	0.19	51	0.00	60	0.05	65	0.05	57	0.06	59	0.05
Rosen 1989		26	0.27	70	0.00	28	0.08	27	0.42	60	0.04	38	0.13
Rosenthal 1930		29	0.26	6	0.03	23	0.09	26	0.43	23	0.44	20	0.43
Rosenthal 1931		3	0.47	1	0.23	1	0.23	2	0.82	4	0.86	1	0.84
Rosenthal 1931b		5	0.45	7	0.03	5	0.32	3	0.80	5	0.84	3	0.82
Rosenthal 1931c		14	0.36	20	0.00	7	0.15	10	0.68	11	0.63	11	0.65
Rosenthal 1931d		24	0.29	57	0.00	26	0.08	25	0.43	13	0.55	17	0.49
Rossi 2007		80	0.00	58	0.00	77	0.03	77	0.03	53	0.05	68	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		51	0.19	38	0.00	35	0.11	38	0.23	53	0.07	37	0.13
Rubinstein 1952		52	0.18	59	0.00	47	0.07	50	0.07	54	0.05	56	0.06
Rubinstein 1966		22	0.31	37	0.00	22	0.12	20	0.57	40	0.13	28	0.27
Schilhawsky 1960		56	0.17	22	0.00	59	0.06	57	0.06	48	0.06	55	0.06
Shebanova 2002		28	0.26	76	0.00	39	0.07	36	0.26	53	0.08	35	0.14
Smith 1975		39	0.22	46	0.00	30	0.08	30	0.40	29	0.40	23	0.40
Sokolov 2002		46	0.20	26	0.00	36	0.08	41	0.18	66	0.03	47	0.07
Sztompka 1959		59	0.16	77	0.00	49	0.07	51	0.07	60	0.06	54	0.06
Tomsic 1995		38	0.22	43	0.00	24	0.08	32	0.36	32	0.21	27	0.27
Uninsky 1932		55	0.17	71	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	74	0.04	49	0.07
Uninsky 1971		21	0.31	27	0.00	19	0.13	18	0.62	32	0.26	24	0.40
Wasowski 1980		90	-0.10	86	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	85	0.02	82	0.02
Zak 1937		63	0.15	72	0.00	62	0.06	59	0.06	67	0.05	58	0.05
Zak 1951		48	0.20	48	0.00	55	0.06	58	0.06	48	0.07	52	0.06
Average		10	0.37	10	0.02	6	0.17	6	0.75	72	0.04	31	0.17
Random 1		81	0.00	78	0.00	88	0.02	90	0.02	64	0.04	78	0.03
Random 2		69	0.12	52	0.00	67	0.04	71	0.04	10	0.48	36	0.14
Random 3		82	0.00	49	0.00	87	0.02	81	0.02	18	0.39	44	0.09

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).