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		5	0.86	5	0.07	3	0.23	4	0.67	3	0.59	4	0.63
Anderszewski 2003		24	0.74	26	0.00	35	0.06	30	0.27	10	0.38	33	0.32
Ashkenazy 1981		50	0.66	25	0.00	46	0.07	48	0.07	28	0.24	55	0.13
Bacha 2000		76	0.54	33	0.00	65	0.04	72	0.04	34	0.14	66	0.07
Badura 1965		38	0.71	67	0.00	31	0.07	33	0.26	9	0.57	25	0.38
Barbosa 1983		84	0.45	30	0.00	74	0.03	81	0.03	46	0.08	73	0.05
Biret 1990		55	0.65	24	0.00	53	0.05	55	0.05	39	0.12	65	0.08
Blet 2003		41	0.71	70	0.00	49	0.05	59	0.05	11	0.38	53	0.14
Block 1995		69	0.55	56	0.00	58	0.04	65	0.04	38	0.12	70	0.07
Blumental 1952		68	0.57	38	0.00	34	0.06	42	0.15	24	0.19	47	0.17
Boshniakovich 1969		10	0.81	9	0.03	11	0.15	12	0.48	5	0.58	13	0.53
Brailowsky 1960		70	0.55	54	0.00	79	0.02	87	0.02	77	0.03	90	0.02
Bunin 1987		79	0.50	77	0.00	77	0.03	80	0.03	28	0.29	63	0.09
Bunin 1987b		80	0.49	82	0.00	76	0.03	83	0.03	28	0.29	62	0.09
Chiu 1999		78	0.50	19	0.00	66	0.04	71	0.04	57	0.04	80	0.04
Cohen 1997		88	0.31	71	0.00	88	0.03	73	0.03	58	0.04	88	0.03
Cortot 1951		56	0.63	78	0.00	67	0.04	66	0.04	51	0.05	84	0.04
Csalog 1996		83	0.47	79	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	73	0.03	86	0.03
Czerny 1949		6	0.85	13	0.01	7	0.27	7	0.58	4	0.59	6	0.58
Czerny 1990		12	0.80	7	0.05	9	0.13	10	0.53	2	0.56	11	0.54
Duchoud 2007		66	0.59	37	0.00	64	0.04	69	0.04	22	0.27	60	0.10
Ezaki 2006		30	0.73	39	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.13	19	0.38	41	0.22
Falvay 1989		85	0.45	59	0.00	87	0.03	76	0.03	60	0.06	81	0.04
Farrell 1958		58	0.63	35	0.00	52	0.05	54	0.05	47	0.09	68	0.07
Ferenczy 1958		64	0.60	86	0.00	70	0.05	60	0.05	51	0.05	75	0.05
Fliere 1977		2	0.88	4	0.08	5	0.27	5	0.65	2	0.57	5	0.61
Fou 1978		51	0.66	27	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.14	24	0.30	43	0.20
Francois 1956		48	0.69	72	0.00	51	0.06	52	0.06	14	0.46	48	0.17
Friedman 1923		43	0.70	14	0.01	45	0.06	45	0.12	19	0.47	40	0.24
Friedman 1923b		42	0.71	51	0.00	40	0.07	36	0.20	18	0.48	36	0.31
Friedman 1930		36	0.72	87	0.00	36	0.06	39	0.16	17	0.48	38	0.28
Garcia 2007		21	0.75	55	0.00	39	0.06	38	0.18	13	0.47	37	0.29
Garcia 2007b		34	0.72	68	0.00	37	0.06	32	0.26	16	0.46	30	0.35
Gierzod 1998		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Gornostaeva 1994		28	0.73	21	0.00	28	0.06	37	0.20	3	0.57	32	0.34
Groot 1988		73	0.54	61	0.00	71	0.03	74	0.03	46	0.07	77	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		29	0.73	18	0.00	25	0.08	25	0.34	27	0.31	34	0.32
Hatto 1993		32	0.72	36	0.00	22	0.08	18	0.41	12	0.49	19	0.45
Hatto 1997		27	0.74	42	0.00	23	0.10	19	0.41	11	0.47	20	0.44
Horowitz 1949		52	0.66	80	0.00	56	0.06	51	0.06	35	0.35	51	0.14
Indjic 1988		25	0.74	28	0.00	21	0.09	16	0.42	11	0.48	17	0.45
Kapell 1951		44	0.70	65	0.00	32	0.06	35	0.21	30	0.15	45	0.18
Kissin 1993		4	0.86	1	0.21	1	0.21	3	0.68	2	0.72	1	0.70
Kushner 1989		15	0.78	15	0.01	33	0.06	28	0.28	18	0.43	27	0.35
Luisada 1991		23	0.74	11	0.01	16	0.10	20	0.40	7	0.46	21	0.43
Lushtak 2004		54	0.65	73	0.00	55	0.05	56	0.05	38	0.14	64	0.08
Malcuzynski 1961		61	0.61	44	0.00	68	0.05	57	0.05	17	0.31	56	0.12
Magaloff 1978		49	0.68	49	0.00	54	0.05	53	0.05	9	0.42	49	0.14
Magin 1975		18	0.76	45	0.00	15	0.11	14	0.44	9	0.51	15	0.47
Michalowski 1933		46	0.69	52	0.00	48	0.09	46	0.09	16	0.44	44	0.20
Milkina 1970		19	0.76	29	0.00	18	0.12	27	0.31	9	0.50	23	0.39
Mohovich 1999		40	0.71	32	0.00	47	0.09	47	0.09	27	0.38	46	0.18
Moravec 1969		81	0.48	34	0.00	86	0.03	75	0.03	46	0.07	71	0.05
Morozova 2008		39	0.71	50	0.00	38	0.06	34	0.23	15	0.42	35	0.31
Neighaus 1950		9	0.81	31	0.00	10	0.14	9	0.54	8	0.56	10	0.55
Niedzielski 1931		22	0.74	46	0.00	20	0.08	15	0.44	6	0.54	14	0.49
Ohlsson 1999		11	0.80	23	0.00	12	0.16	8	0.54	4	0.61	8	0.57
Osinska 1989		8	0.83	6	0.07	8	0.16	13	0.48	3	0.62	9	0.55
Pachmann 1927		53	0.65	74	0.00	60	0.04	64	0.04	14	0.39	58	0.12
Paderewski 1930		59	0.63	69	0.00	57	0.06	49	0.06	27	0.31	52	0.14
Perlemuter 1992		45	0.70	81	0.00	41	0.04	41	0.15	19	0.32	42	0.22
Pierdomenico 2008		71	0.55	60	0.00	72	0.05	61	0.05	19	0.37	50	0.14
Poblocka 1999		13	0.80	22	0.00	13	0.22	11	0.51	4	0.56	12	0.53
Rabcewiczowa 1932		60	0.62	58	0.00	59	0.05	62	0.05	42	0.10	67	0.07
Rachmaninoff 1923		26	0.74	57	0.00	27	0.06	29	0.27	9	0.43	31	0.34
Rangell 2001		86	0.45	48	0.00	80	0.03	85	0.03	51	0.04	89	0.03
Richter 1976		62	0.61	62	0.00	63	0.04	68	0.04	34	0.36	57	0.12
Rosen 1989		16	0.77	12	0.01	17	0.12	22	0.39	8	0.55	16	0.46
Rosenthal 1930		57	0.63	85	0.00	61	0.06	50	0.06	14	0.33	54	0.14
Rosenthal 1931		74	0.54	89	0.00	83	0.02	86	0.02	44	0.13	74	0.05
Rosenthal 1931b		72	0.55	75	0.00	82	0.02	88	0.02	41	0.12	78	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		67	0.58	64	0.00	73	0.03	77	0.03	22	0.31	61	0.10
Rosenthal 1931d		75	0.54	88	0.00	84	0.04	70	0.04	53	0.05	83	0.04
Rossi 2007		82	0.48	16	0.01	85	0.03	78	0.03	56	0.05	79	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		65	0.60	83	0.00	69	0.05	58	0.05	61	0.04	82	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		87	0.44	76	0.00	75	0.03	79	0.03	69	0.05	85	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		63	0.60	17	0.01	62	0.04	67	0.04	44	0.13	69	0.07
Schilhawsky 1960		14	0.79	20	0.00	14	0.10	21	0.40	14	0.51	18	0.45
Shebanova 2002		1	0.88	2	0.16	2	0.20	2	0.69	2	0.67	2	0.68
Smith 1975		35	0.72	40	0.00	50	0.04	63	0.04	22	0.26	59	0.10
Sokolov 2002		47	0.69	8	0.04	24	0.08	31	0.26	3	0.50	26	0.36
Sztompka 1959		7	0.84	47	0.00	6	0.23	6	0.58	3	0.57	7	0.57
Tomsic 1995		77	0.52	66	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	46	0.09	72	0.05
Uninsky 1932		37	0.71	63	0.00	26	0.08	26	0.33	19	0.43	24	0.38
Uninsky 1971		31	0.72	10	0.01	19	0.08	17	0.41	20	0.42	22	0.41
Wasowski 1980		33	0.72	53	0.00	42	0.05	40	0.16	11	0.37	39	0.24
Zak 1937		17	0.77	43	0.00	30	0.07	24	0.36	14	0.34	28	0.35
Zak 1951		20	0.75	41	0.00	29	0.06	23	0.37	14	0.34	29	0.35
Average		3	0.88	3	0.13	4	0.30	1	0.74	5	0.54	3	0.63
Random 1		90	-0.18	90	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	58	0.04	87	0.03
Random 2		89	-0.08	84	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	31	0.15	76	0.05
Random 3		91	-0.25	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	82	0.02	91	0.01

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).