Francois 1956

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   44  0.2517  0.0043  0.0544  0.0531  0.1136  0.07
Bacha 1997   24  0.405  0.098  0.1220  0.3536  0.0817  0.17
Barbosa 1983   17  0.4337  0.0015  0.1812  0.5024  0.185  0.30
Biret 1990   1  0.661  0.411  0.402  0.703  0.611  0.65
Block 1995   47  0.2044  0.0048  0.0641  0.0640  0.0643  0.06
Brailowsky 1960   32  0.3347  0.0032  0.0832  0.0838  0.0634  0.07
Chiu 1999   39  0.2935  0.0041  0.0546  0.0548  0.0548  0.05
Clidat 1994   31  0.3348  0.0035  0.0831  0.0848  0.0542  0.06
Cohen 1997   33  0.3338  0.0028  0.0830  0.0843  0.0545  0.06
Cortot 1951   21  0.4130  0.0025  0.1224  0.2525  0.189  0.21
Csalog 1996   5  0.528  0.025  0.176  0.5732  0.0712  0.20
Czerny 1990   35  0.3220  0.0036  0.1127  0.1141  0.0539  0.07
Ezaki 2006   6  0.5212  0.016  0.265  0.5736  0.0614  0.18
Ferenczy 1958   43  0.2525  0.0046  0.0545  0.0534  0.0741  0.06
Fliere 1977   13  0.454  0.107  0.1210  0.5336  0.0713  0.19
Fou 1978   46  0.2449  0.0040  0.0640  0.0645  0.0644  0.06
Francois 1956   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Grinberg 1951   36  0.3239  0.0037  0.1028  0.1036  0.0731  0.08
Hatto 1993   14  0.4518  0.0020  0.1519  0.3547  0.0521  0.13
Hatto 1997   16  0.4440  0.0019  0.1318  0.3633  0.0915  0.18
Indjic 2001   8  0.4942  0.0012  0.1413  0.4928  0.108  0.22
Jonas 1947   10  0.4710  0.0210  0.1214  0.4949  0.0520  0.16
Kapell 1951   23  0.4131  0.0023  0.1022  0.3047  0.0525  0.12
Kiepura 1999   45  0.2426  0.0047  0.0548  0.0548  0.0547  0.05
Kushner 1989   7  0.499  0.029  0.124  0.5939  0.0710  0.20
Luisada 1991   15  0.4415  0.0016  0.1715  0.458  0.414  0.43
Lushtak 2004   50  0.1645  0.0050  0.0450  0.0442  0.0649  0.05
Magaloff 1978   20  0.4223  0.0018  0.1216  0.4138  0.0718  0.17
Meguri 1997   2  0.642  0.132  0.301  0.7913  0.482  0.62
Milkina 1970   38  0.3036  0.0038  0.0739  0.0740  0.0737  0.07
Mohovich 1999   12  0.4722  0.0013  0.1411  0.5027  0.117  0.23
Niedzielski 1931   18  0.4311  0.0121  0.1117  0.4026  0.146  0.24
Ohlsson 1999   25  0.3928  0.0026  0.1325  0.2549  0.0528  0.11
Olejniczak 1990   9  0.4824  0.0011  0.128  0.5641  0.0711  0.20
Osinska 1989   19  0.4343  0.0022  0.1421  0.3149  0.0522  0.12
Rangell 2001   48  0.1750  0.0049  0.0547  0.0550  0.0452  0.04
Richter 1976   30  0.3341  0.0034  0.0834  0.0837  0.0640  0.07
Rubinstein 1938   49  0.1732  0.0039  0.0549  0.0543  0.0650  0.05
Rubinstein 1952   27  0.3619  0.0017  0.1226  0.2241  0.0727  0.12
Rubinstein 1961   42  0.2651  0.0044  0.0542  0.0545  0.0651  0.05
Rubinstein 1966   41  0.2652  0.0045  0.0735  0.0743  0.0646  0.06
Shebanova 2002   11  0.476  0.0314  0.179  0.5643  0.0616  0.18
Smidowicz 1948   37  0.3021  0.0033  0.0737  0.0737  0.0738  0.07
Smidowicz 1948b   34  0.3227  0.0030  0.0738  0.0730  0.1032  0.08
Smith 1975   40  0.267  0.0242  0.0543  0.0529  0.0935  0.07
Sofronitsky 1949   28  0.3414  0.0031  0.0736  0.0727  0.1129  0.09
Sztompka 1959   29  0.3446  0.0027  0.0929  0.0930  0.0930  0.09
Tomsic 1995   3  0.603  0.113  0.463  0.6315  0.393  0.50
Uninsky 1971   22  0.4153  0.0024  0.1223  0.2747  0.0526  0.12
Wasowski 1980   26  0.3734  0.0029  0.0833  0.0840  0.0633  0.07
Average Tempo   4  0.5329  0.004  0.177  0.5648  0.0519  0.17
Random 1   53  -0.0333  0.0053  0.0253  0.0246  0.0453  0.03
Random 2   52  0.0416  0.0052  0.0352  0.0310  0.4623  0.12
Random 3   51  0.0913  0.0151  0.0351  0.036  0.5224  0.12

Note: To load data table give above into Excel, copy and paste the data into a text editor (such as WordPad) first, then copy the text in the editor and past into Excel. You should remove the "target" line from the data before pasting into Excel so that plotting graphs of the data is done properly.

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).