Francois 1956

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		11	0.55	50	0.00	23	0.10	22	0.47	59	0.05	27	0.15
Anderszewski 2003		39	0.48	71	0.00	54	0.04	63	0.04	77	0.03	83	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		50	0.47	45	0.00	42	0.07	40	0.18	65	0.04	47	0.08
Bacha 2000		40	0.48	61	0.00	40	0.08	38	0.21	29	0.23	14	0.22
Badura 1965		69	0.40	79	0.00	74	0.04	72	0.04	66	0.05	75	0.04
Barbosa 1983		74	0.39	75	0.00	66	0.03	77	0.03	54	0.05	71	0.04
Biret 1990		17	0.54	7	0.03	8	0.16	9	0.59	40	0.18	10	0.33
Blet 2003		38	0.48	54	0.00	51	0.04	67	0.04	49	0.06	56	0.05
Block 1995		85	0.34	70	0.00	78	0.03	85	0.03	80	0.03	87	0.03
Blumental 1952		35	0.49	55	0.00	24	0.09	28	0.42	57	0.05	30	0.14
Boshniakovich 1969		21	0.53	16	0.01	29	0.07	35	0.29	69	0.04	40	0.11
Brailowsky 1960		71	0.40	80	0.00	85	0.03	87	0.03	56	0.05	65	0.04
Bunin 1987		78	0.37	68	0.00	80	0.03	81	0.03	68	0.04	88	0.03
Bunin 1987b		84	0.35	87	0.00	82	0.03	82	0.03	51	0.05	68	0.04
Chiu 1999		68	0.42	37	0.00	70	0.04	68	0.04	64	0.04	66	0.04
Cohen 1997		75	0.39	42	0.00	68	0.04	75	0.04	28	0.24	42	0.10
Cortot 1951		79	0.36	85	0.00	79	0.03	78	0.03	62	0.05	77	0.04
Csalog 1996		81	0.36	32	0.00	71	0.04	60	0.04	71	0.04	72	0.04
Czerny 1949		13	0.55	39	0.00	26	0.08	27	0.43	56	0.06	22	0.16
Czerny 1990		3	0.60	8	0.03	4	0.14	7	0.60	52	0.06	17	0.19
Duchoud 2007		82	0.35	51	0.00	77	0.03	86	0.03	79	0.03	85	0.03
Ezaki 2006		55	0.45	48	0.00	63	0.06	46	0.06	86	0.03	61	0.04
Falvay 1989		51	0.46	86	0.00	62	0.05	55	0.05	47	0.09	48	0.07
Farrell 1958		19	0.54	14	0.01	3	0.13	6	0.61	25	0.42	4	0.51
Ferenczy 1958		77	0.37	63	0.00	76	0.03	79	0.03	78	0.03	84	0.03
Fliere 1977		16	0.54	35	0.00	25	0.08	24	0.44	78	0.04	31	0.13
Fou 1978		12	0.55	46	0.00	19	0.13	19	0.49	49	0.06	19	0.17
Francois 1956		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Friedman 1923		56	0.45	41	0.00	55	0.04	64	0.04	63	0.05	78	0.04
Friedman 1923b		61	0.44	47	0.00	56	0.04	61	0.04	62	0.05	76	0.04
Friedman 1930		52	0.46	33	0.00	59	0.05	51	0.05	64	0.05	57	0.05
Garcia 2007		53	0.46	72	0.00	53	0.05	52	0.05	55	0.05	59	0.05
Garcia 2007b		28	0.51	30	0.00	22	0.09	20	0.47	41	0.11	13	0.23
Gierzod 1998		7	0.58	10	0.02	9	0.15	8	0.60	64	0.04	28	0.15
Gornostaeva 1994		18	0.54	27	0.00	28	0.07	31	0.35	49	0.04	39	0.12
Groot 1988		27	0.51	3	0.06	13	0.11	18	0.49	34	0.18	11	0.30
Harasiewicz 1955		31	0.50	19	0.01	41	0.08	42	0.14	67	0.04	52	0.07
Hatto 1993		62	0.44	65	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	72	0.04	51	0.07
Hatto 1997		58	0.45	84	0.00	49	0.05	53	0.05	61	0.05	58	0.05
Horowitz 1949		87	0.32	81	0.00	87	0.03	83	0.03	76	0.04	81	0.03
Indjic 1988		57	0.45	88	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.13	47	0.07	41	0.10
Kapell 1951		41	0.48	76	0.00	48	0.06	47	0.06	78	0.04	55	0.05
Kissin 1993		29	0.51	25	0.00	31	0.08	34	0.30	59	0.05	38	0.12
Kushner 1989		2	0.60	2	0.09	2	0.29	10	0.59	32	0.32	6	0.43
Luisada 1991		46	0.47	56	0.00	57	0.05	56	0.05	66	0.04	63	0.04
Lushtak 2004		20	0.54	28	0.00	20	0.09	17	0.50	57	0.05	23	0.16
Malcuzynski 1961		60	0.44	43	0.00	64	0.04	62	0.04	85	0.03	80	0.03
Magaloff 1978		22	0.53	23	0.00	27	0.08	26	0.44	31	0.26	8	0.34
Magin 1975		26	0.51	6	0.03	16	0.11	23	0.45	49	0.05	24	0.15
Michalowski 1933		44	0.47	13	0.01	44	0.06	44	0.12	40	0.20	25	0.15
Milkina 1970		6	0.58	38	0.00	14	0.13	14	0.53	48	0.07	16	0.19
Mohovich 1999		34	0.50	73	0.00	38	0.08	39	0.20	68	0.04	45	0.09
Moravec 1969		70	0.40	64	0.00	72	0.04	65	0.04	66	0.04	62	0.04
Morozova 2008		63	0.44	22	0.00	36	0.07	37	0.21	72	0.04	44	0.09
Neighaus 1950		4	0.60	4	0.05	6	0.13	3	0.64	24	0.35	5	0.47
Niedzielski 1931		42	0.48	18	0.01	39	0.08	41	0.17	50	0.05	43	0.09
Ohlsson 1999		23	0.52	31	0.00	33	0.11	25	0.44	46	0.06	20	0.16
Osinska 1989		9	0.58	26	0.00	17	0.10	15	0.52	46	0.09	15	0.22
Pachmann 1927		65	0.43	59	0.00	81	0.03	76	0.03	44	0.15	49	0.07
Paderewski 1930		15	0.54	9	0.02	12	0.12	12	0.56	2	0.69	1	0.62
Perlemuter 1992		10	0.57	5	0.05	10	0.15	4	0.63	13	0.51	3	0.57
Pierdomenico 2008		30	0.51	12	0.01	15	0.10	11	0.58	6	0.58	2	0.58
Poblocka 1999		66	0.42	82	0.00	67	0.04	71	0.04	86	0.03	79	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		24	0.52	15	0.01	11	0.14	13	0.54	35	0.20	9	0.33
Rachmaninoff 1923		37	0.49	34	0.00	34	0.08	32	0.34	78	0.04	36	0.12
Rangell 2001		59	0.44	44	0.00	47	0.06	49	0.06	35	0.27	34	0.13
Richter 1976		88	0.31	74	0.00	88	0.04	70	0.04	68	0.04	69	0.04
Rosen 1989		14	0.55	40	0.00	18	0.09	21	0.47	62	0.05	29	0.15
Rosenthal 1930		73	0.39	36	0.00	75	0.04	66	0.04	72	0.03	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		86	0.33	60	0.00	86	0.03	80	0.03	62	0.04	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		76	0.37	57	0.00	73	0.04	73	0.04	47	0.06	60	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		83	0.35	89	0.00	84	0.03	88	0.03	72	0.03	90	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		80	0.36	77	0.00	83	0.03	84	0.03	65	0.04	89	0.03
Rossi 2007		48	0.47	11	0.02	46	0.06	48	0.06	33	0.29	32	0.13
Rubinstein 1939		64	0.43	78	0.00	61	0.04	59	0.04	60	0.04	67	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		36	0.49	29	0.00	21	0.08	16	0.50	34	0.30	7	0.39
Rubinstein 1966		25	0.52	52	0.00	32	0.08	30	0.40	57	0.06	26	0.15
Schilhawsky 1960		49	0.47	17	0.01	60	0.05	58	0.05	82	0.03	73	0.04
Shebanova 2002		8	0.58	24	0.00	7	0.13	5	0.62	79	0.04	21	0.16
Smith 1975		47	0.47	83	0.00	52	0.05	54	0.05	54	0.05	54	0.05
Sokolov 2002		45	0.47	21	0.00	37	0.09	36	0.27	50	0.05	35	0.12
Sztompka 1959		5	0.60	20	0.01	5	0.12	2	0.64	47	0.08	12	0.23
Tomsic 1995		72	0.40	90	0.00	69	0.04	69	0.04	46	0.09	53	0.06
Uninsky 1932		67	0.42	62	0.00	65	0.04	74	0.04	78	0.04	74	0.04
Uninsky 1971		54	0.46	58	0.00	58	0.05	50	0.05	75	0.04	70	0.04
Wasowski 1980		43	0.47	67	0.00	50	0.05	57	0.05	72	0.04	64	0.04
Zak 1937		33	0.50	49	0.00	35	0.08	33	0.31	68	0.05	37	0.12
Zak 1951		32	0.50	53	0.00	30	0.07	29	0.40	81	0.04	33	0.13
Average		1	0.66	1	0.45	1	0.44	1	0.78	64	0.04	18	0.18
Random 1		91	-0.10	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	67	0.03	91	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.03	66	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	27	0.24	50	0.07
Random 3		90	-0.03	69	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	11	0.35	46	0.08

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).