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		20	0.43	49	0.00	22	0.08	16	0.48	9	0.62	14	0.55
Anderszewski 2003		11	0.46	7	0.02	5	0.15	5	0.68	3	0.75	1	0.71
Ashkenazy 1981		39	0.38	44	0.00	50	0.05	67	0.05	44	0.16	65	0.09
Bacha 2000		21	0.43	25	0.00	25	0.09	19	0.44	3	0.72	11	0.56
Badura 1965		33	0.39	18	0.00	28	0.08	29	0.31	4	0.66	22	0.45
Barbosa 1983		29	0.41	62	0.00	38	0.08	31	0.29	41	0.20	38	0.24
Biret 1990		85	0.18	74	0.00	85	0.03	81	0.03	77	0.03	88	0.03
Blet 2003		81	0.22	45	0.00	82	0.03	86	0.03	77	0.03	84	0.03
Block 1995		55	0.35	32	0.00	30	0.07	32	0.28	28	0.35	32	0.31
Blumental 1952		14	0.44	27	0.00	15	0.16	15	0.52	13	0.58	15	0.55
Boshniakovich 1969		9	0.47	5	0.02	7	0.16	6	0.66	11	0.63	8	0.64
Brailowsky 1960		19	0.43	13	0.01	18	0.11	23	0.40	8	0.71	16	0.53
Bunin 1987		73	0.26	73	0.00	78	0.04	78	0.04	85	0.03	86	0.03
Bunin 1987b		74	0.26	81	0.00	77	0.04	76	0.04	79	0.03	81	0.03
Chiu 1999		58	0.33	69	0.00	64	0.06	55	0.06	60	0.05	74	0.05
Cohen 1997		68	0.30	63	0.00	71	0.07	50	0.07	33	0.40	47	0.17
Cortot 1951		69	0.29	75	0.00	65	0.04	74	0.04	29	0.30	60	0.11
Csalog 1996		75	0.25	88	0.00	76	0.04	77	0.04	74	0.04	77	0.04
Czerny 1949		56	0.35	61	0.00	60	0.05	62	0.05	31	0.45	50	0.15
Czerny 1990		61	0.33	82	0.00	52	0.06	59	0.06	56	0.06	70	0.06
Duchoud 2007		84	0.18	91	0.00	87	0.02	89	0.02	75	0.04	85	0.03
Ezaki 2006		4	0.51	16	0.01	8	0.18	4	0.70	6	0.68	4	0.69
Falvay 1989		27	0.42	36	0.00	31	0.07	35	0.25	40	0.17	39	0.21
Farrell 1958		83	0.22	87	0.00	80	0.03	82	0.03	73	0.03	80	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		34	0.39	19	0.00	53	0.05	61	0.05	16	0.68	45	0.18
Fliere 1977		16	0.44	38	0.00	14	0.13	13	0.54	34	0.31	25	0.41
Fou 1978		6	0.49	6	0.02	10	0.22	9	0.63	7	0.66	7	0.64
Francois 1956		80	0.23	80	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	60	0.04	89	0.03
Friedman 1923		79	0.23	78	0.00	83	0.03	87	0.03	76	0.04	90	0.03
Friedman 1923b		78	0.23	71	0.00	84	0.03	80	0.03	69	0.04	87	0.03
Friedman 1930		70	0.29	50	0.00	70	0.06	53	0.06	62	0.05	76	0.05
Garcia 2007		67	0.30	26	0.00	51	0.06	58	0.06	25	0.35	51	0.14
Garcia 2007b		82	0.22	58	0.00	72	0.04	71	0.04	73	0.04	78	0.04
Gierzod 1998		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Gornostaeva 1994		25	0.42	54	0.00	20	0.09	18	0.46	13	0.59	18	0.52
Groot 1988		65	0.30	79	0.00	39	0.06	41	0.15	42	0.11	53	0.13
Harasiewicz 1955		10	0.47	11	0.01	12	0.17	12	0.60	24	0.43	20	0.51
Hatto 1993		23	0.42	48	0.00	27	0.08	20	0.44	30	0.28	27	0.35
Hatto 1997		38	0.39	51	0.00	37	0.07	33	0.28	31	0.26	33	0.27
Horowitz 1949		87	0.18	89	0.00	86	0.03	85	0.03	86	0.03	82	0.03
Indjic 1988		31	0.40	84	0.00	35	0.06	27	0.34	31	0.30	31	0.32
Kapell 1951		71	0.29	85	0.00	68	0.05	70	0.05	66	0.05	75	0.05
Kissin 1993		22	0.43	42	0.00	34	0.06	36	0.24	31	0.47	28	0.34
Kushner 1989		2	0.52	8	0.01	3	0.26	2	0.75	9	0.65	2	0.70
Luisada 1991		62	0.32	33	0.00	69	0.05	68	0.05	67	0.05	72	0.05
Lushtak 2004		8	0.47	3	0.03	6	0.15	8	0.65	4	0.70	5	0.67
Malcuzynski 1961		5	0.50	4	0.03	4	0.34	3	0.72	4	0.68	3	0.70
Magaloff 1978		15	0.44	12	0.01	13	0.11	14	0.54	12	0.53	17	0.53
Magin 1975		49	0.37	64	0.00	41	0.06	43	0.13	34	0.32	41	0.20
Michalowski 1933		88	0.16	65	0.00	88	0.03	84	0.03	74	0.03	83	0.03
Milkina 1970		41	0.38	52	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.13	39	0.24	44	0.18
Mohovich 1999		3	0.51	2	0.12	2	0.28	10	0.62	13	0.61	9	0.61
Moravec 1969		42	0.38	22	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	43	0.13	57	0.11
Morozova 2008		24	0.42	15	0.01	17	0.12	21	0.43	25	0.43	24	0.43
Neighaus 1950		53	0.35	57	0.00	61	0.06	60	0.06	48	0.06	71	0.06
Niedzielski 1931		64	0.31	14	0.01	57	0.05	65	0.05	31	0.27	55	0.12
Ohlsson 1999		46	0.37	90	0.00	55	0.07	52	0.07	48	0.06	69	0.06
Osinska 1989		17	0.44	66	0.00	29	0.09	22	0.40	29	0.35	26	0.37
Pachmann 1927		59	0.33	46	0.00	67	0.04	72	0.04	42	0.14	67	0.07
Paderewski 1930		72	0.26	83	0.00	73	0.05	64	0.05	41	0.21	63	0.10
Perlemuter 1992		54	0.35	56	0.00	58	0.05	63	0.05	29	0.33	52	0.13
Pierdomenico 2008		66	0.30	21	0.00	66	0.04	75	0.04	40	0.13	66	0.07
Poblocka 1999		47	0.37	30	0.00	56	0.09	46	0.09	45	0.12	61	0.10
Rabcewiczowa 1932		52	0.36	67	0.00	40	0.06	40	0.15	28	0.42	36	0.25
Rachmaninoff 1923		86	0.18	31	0.00	79	0.03	79	0.03	70	0.04	79	0.03
Rangell 2001		40	0.38	23	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.11	31	0.41	40	0.21
Richter 1976		36	0.39	59	0.00	46	0.05	66	0.05	36	0.27	56	0.12
Rosen 1989		13	0.44	43	0.00	26	0.08	25	0.38	23	0.30	29	0.34
Rosenthal 1930		51	0.36	29	0.00	62	0.07	48	0.07	26	0.55	43	0.20
Rosenthal 1931		18	0.44	24	0.00	16	0.14	17	0.48	8	0.75	10	0.60
Rosenthal 1931b		26	0.42	34	0.00	23	0.08	26	0.35	7	0.76	19	0.52
Rosenthal 1931c		28	0.41	9	0.01	19	0.12	24	0.39	12	0.58	21	0.48
Rosenthal 1931d		60	0.33	70	0.00	49	0.07	49	0.07	18	0.47	46	0.18
Rossi 2007		76	0.24	37	0.00	75	0.04	73	0.04	27	0.34	54	0.12
Rubinstein 1939		57	0.34	40	0.00	63	0.07	47	0.07	37	0.15	62	0.10
Rubinstein 1952		37	0.39	35	0.00	32	0.06	37	0.22	36	0.30	35	0.26
Rubinstein 1966		7	0.48	20	0.00	9	0.16	11	0.62	18	0.50	12	0.56
Schilhawsky 1960		45	0.37	28	0.00	59	0.06	57	0.06	22	0.37	49	0.15
Shebanova 2002		30	0.41	76	0.00	36	0.07	30	0.29	40	0.24	34	0.26
Smith 1975		35	0.39	60	0.00	33	0.06	28	0.32	10	0.61	23	0.44
Sokolov 2002		48	0.37	10	0.01	48	0.06	54	0.06	26	0.41	48	0.16
Sztompka 1959		50	0.36	53	0.00	42	0.05	39	0.16	40	0.25	42	0.20
Tomsic 1995		44	0.37	41	0.00	21	0.08	34	0.26	16	0.43	30	0.33
Uninsky 1932		63	0.32	55	0.00	24	0.07	38	0.19	26	0.34	37	0.25
Uninsky 1971		12	0.46	17	0.00	11	0.24	7	0.65	7	0.66	6	0.65
Wasowski 1980		77	0.24	77	0.00	74	0.06	56	0.06	64	0.05	73	0.05
Zak 1937		43	0.38	39	0.00	54	0.07	51	0.07	53	0.05	68	0.06
Zak 1951		32	0.40	47	0.00	47	0.05	69	0.05	28	0.25	58	0.11
Average		1	0.59	1	0.63	1	0.62	1	0.85	28	0.37	13	0.56
Random 1		91	-0.03	68	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	76	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	0.10	72	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	2	0.56	59	0.11
Random 3		90	0.00	86	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	11	0.42	64	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).