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		21	0.54	14	0.01	18	0.08	21	0.28	23	0.29	21	0.28
Anderszewski 2003		19	0.55	3	0.07	5	0.10	7	0.45	4	0.58	4	0.51
Ashkenazy 1981		3	0.62	8	0.02	3	0.31	3	0.62	13	0.48	2	0.55
Bacha 2000		9	0.59	28	0.00	21	0.09	10	0.41	1	0.65	3	0.52
Badura 1965		60	0.44	23	0.01	37	0.04	45	0.09	28	0.28	40	0.16
Barbosa 1983		72	0.38	90	0.00	68	0.03	78	0.03	62	0.04	82	0.03
Biret 1990		66	0.42	83	0.00	70	0.03	73	0.03	55	0.04	87	0.03
Blet 2003		74	0.38	41	0.00	76	0.03	70	0.03	81	0.03	84	0.03
Block 1995		64	0.42	15	0.01	67	0.03	74	0.03	55	0.04	86	0.03
Blumental 1952		32	0.51	4	0.06	6	0.10	11	0.41	4	0.58	5	0.49
Boshniakovich 1969		24	0.53	9	0.02	32	0.04	40	0.11	36	0.21	43	0.15
Brailowsky 1960		26	0.53	38	0.00	58	0.07	47	0.07	27	0.31	41	0.15
Bunin 1987		54	0.45	57	0.00	72	0.04	68	0.04	66	0.04	72	0.04
Bunin 1987b		53	0.45	67	0.00	71	0.03	77	0.03	75	0.03	79	0.03
Chiu 1999		79	0.34	58	0.00	69	0.03	72	0.03	47	0.06	68	0.04
Cohen 1997		71	0.38	77	0.00	65	0.05	55	0.05	21	0.36	47	0.13
Cortot 1951		31	0.51	12	0.01	10	0.07	35	0.16	14	0.39	23	0.25
Csalog 1996		73	0.38	74	0.00	81	0.02	84	0.02	59	0.05	83	0.03
Czerny 1949		27	0.52	52	0.00	20	0.08	15	0.37	20	0.48	9	0.42
Czerny 1990		44	0.47	31	0.00	38	0.04	36	0.15	47	0.06	55	0.09
Duchoud 2007		61	0.43	84	0.00	62	0.04	67	0.04	63	0.04	71	0.04
Ezaki 2006		5	0.61	26	0.01	14	0.07	5	0.47	19	0.39	6	0.43
Falvay 1989		33	0.51	10	0.02	11	0.06	19	0.32	33	0.20	22	0.25
Farrell 1958		57	0.44	40	0.00	79	0.04	64	0.04	77	0.03	78	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		56	0.44	46	0.00	73	0.03	79	0.03	43	0.11	60	0.06
Fliere 1977		22	0.54	32	0.00	46	0.05	60	0.05	63	0.04	67	0.04
Fou 1978		47	0.47	33	0.00	22	0.07	26	0.22	45	0.14	33	0.18
Francois 1956		30	0.51	75	0.00	27	0.06	23	0.24	35	0.17	30	0.20
Friedman 1923		86	0.20	91	0.00	85	0.03	76	0.03	53	0.06	74	0.04
Friedman 1923b		85	0.21	81	0.00	84	0.02	86	0.02	41	0.12	66	0.05
Friedman 1930		76	0.37	20	0.01	56	0.05	52	0.05	26	0.37	44	0.14
Garcia 2007		84	0.21	63	0.00	82	0.02	88	0.02	49	0.06	85	0.03
Garcia 2007b		87	0.14	64	0.00	86	0.02	82	0.02	62	0.04	88	0.03
Gierzod 1998		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Gornostaeva 1994		11	0.58	35	0.00	25	0.07	24	0.24	33	0.23	24	0.23
Groot 1988		36	0.49	47	0.00	44	0.05	41	0.10	61	0.04	61	0.06
Harasiewicz 1955		62	0.43	59	0.00	28	0.05	20	0.28	48	0.05	50	0.12
Hatto 1993		69	0.39	60	0.00	41	0.06	31	0.19	28	0.27	25	0.23
Hatto 1997		63	0.42	86	0.00	30	0.06	25	0.23	33	0.20	27	0.21
Horowitz 1949		65	0.42	87	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	59	0.04	80	0.03
Indjic 1988		70	0.39	42	0.00	40	0.04	28	0.19	34	0.21	28	0.20
Kapell 1951		23	0.53	22	0.01	36	0.04	43	0.10	34	0.29	34	0.17
Kissin 1993		43	0.48	19	0.01	23	0.07	27	0.21	44	0.17	32	0.19
Kushner 1989		4	0.62	53	0.00	15	0.08	12	0.41	13	0.43	8	0.42
Luisada 1991		48	0.46	48	0.00	39	0.05	33	0.17	65	0.05	52	0.09
Lushtak 2004		18	0.55	5	0.03	7	0.10	13	0.40	25	0.36	14	0.38
Malcuzynski 1961		2	0.68	2	0.08	2	0.24	2	0.66	9	0.51	1	0.58
Magaloff 1978		7	0.61	39	0.00	13	0.07	8	0.44	31	0.21	19	0.30
Magin 1975		55	0.44	78	0.00	45	0.05	44	0.09	47	0.06	59	0.07
Michalowski 1933		77	0.36	61	0.00	51	0.05	51	0.05	28	0.35	46	0.13
Milkina 1970		49	0.46	88	0.00	63	0.04	66	0.04	53	0.05	70	0.04
Mohovich 1999		10	0.59	27	0.01	17	0.09	14	0.39	20	0.42	11	0.40
Moravec 1969		16	0.56	7	0.03	19	0.08	18	0.34	12	0.43	13	0.38
Morozova 2008		52	0.45	21	0.01	43	0.05	38	0.14	42	0.11	48	0.12
Neighaus 1950		8	0.60	82	0.00	12	0.06	9	0.42	32	0.24	17	0.32
Niedzielski 1931		51	0.45	43	0.00	49	0.05	59	0.05	18	0.32	45	0.13
Ohlsson 1999		6	0.61	76	0.00	9	0.08	6	0.46	21	0.30	15	0.37
Osinska 1989		38	0.49	85	0.00	53	0.05	54	0.05	47	0.06	64	0.05
Pachmann 1927		80	0.31	79	0.00	78	0.03	71	0.03	70	0.03	81	0.03
Paderewski 1930		28	0.52	45	0.00	47	0.04	63	0.04	29	0.20	53	0.09
Perlemuter 1992		68	0.41	66	0.00	55	0.05	57	0.05	47	0.06	63	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		75	0.37	37	0.00	75	0.04	69	0.04	54	0.05	69	0.04
Poblocka 1999		14	0.57	11	0.02	8	0.09	17	0.34	30	0.24	20	0.29
Rabcewiczowa 1932		40	0.49	36	0.00	52	0.06	49	0.06	23	0.42	38	0.16
Rachmaninoff 1923		82	0.27	49	0.00	77	0.03	75	0.03	84	0.03	76	0.03
Rangell 2001		39	0.49	34	0.00	50	0.04	62	0.04	58	0.04	73	0.04
Richter 1976		78	0.34	80	0.00	80	0.02	81	0.02	71	0.03	90	0.02
Rosen 1989		13	0.58	24	0.01	16	0.11	16	0.35	16	0.43	12	0.39
Rosenthal 1930		34	0.51	18	0.01	57	0.07	48	0.07	26	0.41	37	0.17
Rosenthal 1931		45	0.47	16	0.01	59	0.06	50	0.06	14	0.49	36	0.17
Rosenthal 1931b		46	0.47	25	0.01	60	0.08	46	0.08	10	0.51	29	0.20
Rosenthal 1931c		17	0.55	6	0.03	26	0.06	30	0.19	14	0.52	18	0.31
Rosenthal 1931d		58	0.44	55	0.00	64	0.05	58	0.05	25	0.27	49	0.12
Rossi 2007		88	0.14	54	0.00	87	0.02	83	0.02	51	0.04	75	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		83	0.26	68	0.00	88	0.02	85	0.02	47	0.06	77	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		59	0.44	70	0.00	61	0.05	53	0.05	46	0.08	62	0.06
Rubinstein 1966		50	0.45	50	0.00	66	0.04	65	0.04	49	0.06	65	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		25	0.53	51	0.00	33	0.05	42	0.10	31	0.26	39	0.16
Shebanova 2002		20	0.54	72	0.00	29	0.07	22	0.27	23	0.39	16	0.32
Smith 1975		12	0.58	44	0.00	4	0.12	4	0.50	21	0.37	7	0.43
Sokolov 2002		15	0.56	17	0.01	34	0.05	34	0.17	45	0.13	42	0.15
Sztompka 1959		37	0.49	30	0.00	48	0.05	61	0.05	40	0.17	54	0.09
Tomsic 1995		35	0.51	69	0.00	35	0.04	29	0.19	32	0.19	31	0.19
Uninsky 1932		67	0.42	13	0.01	31	0.05	39	0.13	62	0.05	57	0.08
Uninsky 1971		29	0.52	29	0.00	24	0.06	32	0.18	38	0.25	26	0.21
Wasowski 1980		81	0.29	89	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	82	0.03	89	0.02
Zak 1937		41	0.49	73	0.00	54	0.05	56	0.05	41	0.14	56	0.08
Zak 1951		42	0.48	65	0.00	42	0.06	37	0.15	41	0.19	35	0.17
Average		1	0.71	1	0.46	1	0.45	1	0.74	35	0.23	10	0.41
Random 1		91	-0.04	71	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	67	0.03	91	0.02
Random 2		90	0.03	62	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	17	0.33	58	0.08
Random 3		89	0.10	56	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	5	0.49	51	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).