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		36	0.25	74	0.00	35	0.09	33	0.38	63	0.04	39	0.12
Anderszewski 2003		51	0.21	63	0.00	39	0.07	43	0.20	39	0.16	31	0.18
Ashkenazy 1981		75	0.14	64	0.00	79	0.03	74	0.03	83	0.03	77	0.03
Bacha 2000		65	0.17	84	0.00	46	0.06	52	0.06	48	0.06	48	0.06
Badura 1965		83	0.10	33	0.00	83	0.02	85	0.02	87	0.02	89	0.02
Barbosa 1983		42	0.23	34	0.00	44	0.07	44	0.16	65	0.05	45	0.09
Biret 1990		9	0.43	2	0.15	4	0.28	12	0.70	3	0.79	6	0.74
Blet 2003		34	0.26	47	0.00	38	0.07	39	0.30	58	0.06	37	0.13
Block 1995		33	0.26	69	0.00	43	0.10	40	0.25	65	0.05	42	0.11
Blumental 1952		86	0.07	62	0.00	73	0.03	73	0.03	60	0.05	65	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		67	0.16	19	0.00	57	0.04	61	0.04	84	0.03	76	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		46	0.22	60	0.00	56	0.06	50	0.06	55	0.06	49	0.06
Bunin 1987		49	0.21	10	0.01	53	0.06	55	0.06	63	0.05	58	0.05
Bunin 1987b		48	0.21	55	0.00	54	0.06	56	0.06	61	0.05	56	0.05
Chiu 1999		44	0.22	57	0.00	62	0.04	63	0.04	78	0.04	61	0.04
Cohen 1997		1	0.52	3	0.12	2	0.23	1	0.84	3	0.75	3	0.79
Cortot 1951		19	0.34	7	0.02	24	0.15	20	0.58	18	0.54	13	0.56
Csalog 1996		70	0.16	75	0.00	82	0.02	84	0.02	77	0.04	69	0.03
Czerny 1949		3	0.49	1	0.39	1	0.39	3	0.81	2	0.87	1	0.84
Czerny 1990		81	0.11	76	0.00	80	0.03	77	0.03	84	0.02	91	0.02
Duchoud 2007		39	0.25	44	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	66	0.05	46	0.08
Ezaki 2006		11	0.41	36	0.00	13	0.16	10	0.72	20	0.62	10	0.67
Falvay 1989		26	0.32	24	0.00	22	0.16	19	0.59	12	0.45	18	0.52
Farrell 1958		32	0.27	11	0.01	34	0.11	28	0.46	34	0.30	26	0.37
Ferenczy 1958		29	0.31	41	0.00	25	0.15	24	0.52	20	0.71	12	0.61
Fliere 1977		54	0.20	85	0.00	68	0.04	65	0.04	73	0.04	59	0.04
Fou 1978		53	0.20	37	0.00	47	0.06	54	0.06	84	0.03	63	0.04
Francois 1956		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Friedman 1923		76	0.11	77	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	72	0.04	80	0.03
Friedman 1923b		77	0.11	86	0.00	86	0.02	83	0.02	69	0.04	78	0.03
Friedman 1930		63	0.17	45	0.00	65	0.03	67	0.03	80	0.03	72	0.03
Garcia 2007		85	0.09	78	0.00	70	0.03	71	0.03	80	0.03	75	0.03
Garcia 2007b		79	0.11	79	0.00	78	0.03	68	0.03	76	0.03	79	0.03
Gierzod 1998		88	0.03	70	0.00	61	0.04	66	0.04	78	0.02	74	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		4	0.48	5	0.06	5	0.26	4	0.78	8	0.77	4	0.77
Groot 1988		30	0.31	38	0.00	29	0.12	31	0.41	56	0.06	33	0.16
Harasiewicz 1955		8	0.44	28	0.00	10	0.14	15	0.67	18	0.46	14	0.56
Hatto 1993		47	0.22	72	0.00	50	0.07	48	0.07	67	0.06	53	0.06
Hatto 1997		16	0.35	17	0.00	16	0.16	14	0.67	21	0.37	20	0.50
Horowitz 1949		66	0.16	39	0.00	63	0.03	70	0.03	73	0.04	68	0.03
Indjic 1988		55	0.19	58	0.00	51	0.06	49	0.06	71	0.05	57	0.05
Kapell 1951		50	0.21	23	0.00	48	0.06	53	0.06	71	0.05	55	0.05
Kissin 1993		90	0.00	73	0.00	90	0.02	87	0.02	84	0.03	87	0.02
Kushner 1989		73	0.15	48	0.00	76	0.02	78	0.02	86	0.02	82	0.02
Luisada 1991		41	0.24	31	0.00	52	0.06	51	0.06	74	0.04	54	0.05
Lushtak 2004		61	0.18	52	0.00	58	0.04	59	0.04	68	0.05	64	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		69	0.16	80	0.00	66	0.03	69	0.03	82	0.03	66	0.03
Magaloff 1978		31	0.30	59	0.00	41	0.06	41	0.22	67	0.04	43	0.09
Magin 1975		58	0.19	46	0.00	60	0.04	62	0.04	48	0.09	50	0.06
Michalowski 1933		43	0.23	22	0.00	55	0.07	47	0.07	70	0.05	52	0.06
Milkina 1970		15	0.39	12	0.01	12	0.19	8	0.73	10	0.65	8	0.69
Mohovich 1999		22	0.33	25	0.00	21	0.12	21	0.56	29	0.31	23	0.42
Moravec 1969		21	0.33	15	0.01	20	0.14	23	0.54	31	0.26	25	0.37
Morozova 2008		57	0.19	30	0.00	64	0.04	64	0.04	86	0.03	71	0.03
Neighaus 1950		10	0.42	29	0.00	11	0.16	9	0.73	27	0.33	21	0.49
Niedzielski 1931		78	0.11	26	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	83	0.03	81	0.02
Ohlsson 1999		17	0.35	35	0.00	30	0.10	35	0.35	65	0.04	38	0.12
Osinska 1989		6	0.45	18	0.00	9	0.16	7	0.73	13	0.67	7	0.70
Pachmann 1927		71	0.15	56	0.00	87	0.02	82	0.02	85	0.03	85	0.02
Paderewski 1930		59	0.18	87	0.00	49	0.07	46	0.07	62	0.06	51	0.06
Perlemuter 1992		27	0.32	65	0.00	36	0.08	37	0.31	64	0.04	40	0.11
Pierdomenico 2008		56	0.19	81	0.00	59	0.05	57	0.05	66	0.04	62	0.04
Poblocka 1999		40	0.24	50	0.00	33	0.09	32	0.40	49	0.06	34	0.15
Rabcewiczowa 1932		7	0.44	6	0.03	6	0.19	6	0.75	9	0.75	5	0.75
Rachmaninoff 1923		37	0.25	66	0.00	42	0.07	42	0.20	68	0.04	44	0.09
Rangell 2001		45	0.22	40	0.00	31	0.08	30	0.41	62	0.05	36	0.14
Richter 1976		80	0.11	53	0.00	81	0.02	81	0.02	85	0.03	84	0.02
Rosen 1989		24	0.32	82	0.00	26	0.12	25	0.52	47	0.05	32	0.16
Rosenthal 1930		35	0.26	43	0.00	40	0.06	38	0.30	39	0.27	28	0.28
Rosenthal 1931		64	0.17	67	0.00	32	0.11	34	0.36	33	0.46	24	0.41
Rosenthal 1931b		52	0.20	14	0.01	27	0.13	29	0.42	25	0.50	22	0.46
Rosenthal 1931c		23	0.32	13	0.01	18	0.16	22	0.55	17	0.54	16	0.54
Rosenthal 1931d		38	0.25	49	0.00	23	0.14	26	0.51	15	0.54	19	0.52
Rossi 2007		72	0.15	51	0.00	72	0.03	72	0.03	51	0.05	60	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		25	0.32	61	0.00	28	0.11	27	0.48	42	0.12	29	0.24
Rubinstein 1952		12	0.41	9	0.02	8	0.16	5	0.75	8	0.63	9	0.69
Rubinstein 1966		20	0.33	54	0.00	19	0.11	18	0.61	35	0.16	27	0.31
Schilhawsky 1960		62	0.18	32	0.00	74	0.03	76	0.03	77	0.04	70	0.03
Shebanova 2002		84	0.09	21	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	87	0.03	88	0.02
Smith 1975		2	0.50	4	0.08	3	0.26	2	0.81	5	0.80	2	0.80
Sokolov 2002		14	0.40	27	0.00	14	0.15	13	0.69	10	0.56	11	0.62
Sztompka 1959		68	0.16	83	0.00	75	0.02	80	0.02	80	0.03	86	0.02
Tomsic 1995		18	0.34	16	0.00	15	0.17	17	0.65	12	0.47	15	0.55
Uninsky 1932		60	0.18	88	0.00	67	0.04	60	0.04	85	0.02	73	0.03
Uninsky 1971		13	0.40	20	0.00	17	0.17	16	0.66	17	0.42	17	0.53
Wasowski 1980		28	0.31	89	0.00	37	0.08	36	0.33	58	0.06	35	0.14
Zak 1937		82	0.10	90	0.00	77	0.02	79	0.02	79	0.03	83	0.02
Zak 1951		74	0.14	71	0.00	69	0.04	58	0.04	74	0.03	67	0.03
Average		5	0.46	8	0.02	7	0.16	11	0.71	58	0.05	30	0.19
Random 1		91	-0.03	68	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	74	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		87	0.04	91	0.00	71	0.03	75	0.03	17	0.42	41	0.11
Random 3		89	0.01	42	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	14	0.44	47	0.07

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).