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	7	0.62	31	0.00	3	0.11	4	0.53	16	0.50	4	0.51
Anderszewski 2003	38	0.53	69	0.00	40	0.05	40	0.12	30	0.24	42	0.17
Ashkenazy 1981	6	0.62	3	0.08	5	0.12	6	0.51	15	0.50	7	0.50
Bacha 2000	78	0.39	83	0.00	69	0.04	80	0.04	40	0.15	70	0.08
Badura 1965	12	0.59	2	0.08	7	0.12	8	0.49	1	0.66	2	0.57
Barbosa 1983	41	0.53	36	0.00	26	0.05	36	0.17	20	0.38	31	0.25
Biret 1990	57	0.50	60	0.00	47	0.05	60	0.05	40	0.15	69	0.09
Blet 2003	40	0.53	75	0.00	58	0.05	62	0.05	30	0.21	62	0.10
Block 1995	64	0.45	66	0.00	65	0.04	64	0.04	50	0.05	83	0.04
Blumental 1952	43	0.53	6	0.03	27	0.04	37	0.16	23	0.27	37	0.21
Boshniakovich 1969	16	0.58	37	0.00	20	0.08	22	0.29	19	0.41	18	0.34
Brailowsky 1960	61	0.48	61	0.00	66	0.04	70	0.04	25	0.38	51	0.12
Bunin 1987	60	0.49	43	0.00	45	0.06	46	0.06	26	0.32	47	0.14
Bunin 1987b	58	0.49	22	0.01	44	0.06	41	0.12	24	0.34	38	0.20
Chiu 1999	15	0.58	18	0.01	19	0.09	15	0.38	7	0.60	9	0.48
Cohen 1997	87	0.28	64	0.00	87	0.04	71	0.04	49	0.05	84	0.04
Cortot 1951	63	0.45	71	0.00	77	0.04	77	0.04	35	0.18	72	0.08
Csalog 1996	86	0.32	80	0.00	78	0.04	74	0.04	54	0.05	82	0.04
Czerny 1949	22	0.56	29	0.01	14	0.13	13	0.42	19	0.45	14	0.43
Czerny 1990	5	0.62	10	0.02	2	0.12	7	0.50	13	0.51	8	0.50
Duchoud 2007	54	0.50	33	0.00	39	0.05	38	0.13	12	0.47	32	0.25
Ezaki 2006	4	0.63	5	0.05	8	0.09	14	0.40	20	0.42	15	0.41
Falvay 1989	48	0.51	57	0.00	59	0.04	65	0.04	43	0.13	73	0.07
Farrell 1958	45	0.52	15	0.01	54	0.04	69	0.04	20	0.34	53	0.12
Ferenczy 1958	77	0.40	87	0.00	86	0.03	81	0.03	61	0.04	87	0.03
Fliere 1977	3	0.63	4	0.06	4	0.11	2	0.55	20	0.46	5	0.50
Fou 1978	9	0.61	32	0.00	10	0.13	3	0.54	13	0.47	6	0.50
Francois 1956	65	0.44	56	0.00	57	0.05	52	0.05	35	0.25	59	0.11
Friedman 1923	72	0.42	67	0.00	75	0.05	63	0.05	19	0.37	49	0.14
Friedman 1923b	70	0.43	49	0.00	72	0.05	57	0.05	19	0.40	48	0.14
Friedman 1930	62	0.46	55	0.00	67	0.05	56	0.05	34	0.22	63	0.10
Garcia 2007	74	0.40	38	0.00	74	0.04	78	0.04	20	0.32	57	0.11
Garcia 2007b	71	0.42	82	0.00	70	0.04	73	0.04	19	0.34	56	0.12
Gierzod 1998	30	0.54	19	0.01	22	0.07	18	0.33	42	0.24	26	0.28
Gornostaeva 1994	46	0.51	28	0.01	56	0.05	59	0.05	41	0.15	68	0.09
Groot 1988	47	0.51	16	0.01	17	0.09	25	0.28	24	0.38	19	0.33
Harasiewicz 1955	13	0.58	73	0.00	25	0.05	28	0.25	49	0.06	55	0.12
Hatto 1993	34	0.54	40	0.00	30	0.05	24	0.28	20	0.24	30	0.26
Hatto 1997	28	0.54	84	0.00	31	0.06	26	0.27	26	0.27	27	0.27
Horowitz 1949	59	0.49	34	0.00	62	0.05	54	0.05	20	0.50	43	0.16
Indjic 1988	36	0.53	76	0.00	32	0.09	23	0.28	24	0.24	29	0.26
Kapell 1951	51	0.51	35	0.00	42	0.06	43	0.12	39	0.18	45	0.15
Kissin 1993	8	0.61	51	0.00	15	0.11	12	0.44	20	0.47	11	0.45
Kushner 1989	1	0.65	1	0.35	1	0.35	1	0.69	2	0.66	1	0.67
Luisada 1991	2	0.64	7	0.03	9	0.10	17	0.37	23	0.44	16	0.40
Lushtak 2004	18	0.57	27	0.01	33	0.07	31	0.22	36	0.18	39	0.20
Malcuzynski 1961	49	0.51	39	0.00	48	0.05	61	0.05	43	0.14	71	0.08
Magaloff 1978	55	0.50	68	0.00	55	0.04	67	0.04	73	0.04	80	0.04
Magin 1975	11	0.60	12	0.02	11	0.12	20	0.31	24	0.33	20	0.32
Michalowski 1933	68	0.43	70	0.00	68	0.06	50	0.06	36	0.25	54	0.12
Milkina 1970	21	0.56	14	0.01	6	0.11	9	0.48	15	0.47	10	0.47
Mohovich 1999	50	0.51	59	0.00	50	0.06	48	0.06	52	0.07	76	0.06
Moravec 1969	73	0.41	13	0.01	60	0.05	58	0.05	33	0.20	60	0.10
Morozova 2008	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Neighaus 1950	29	0.54	9	0.02	24	0.06	21	0.31	30	0.23	28	0.27
Niedzielski 1931	84	0.36	54	0.00	83	0.02	86	0.02	68	0.03	89	0.02
Ohlsson 1999	20	0.56	23	0.01	18	0.08	16	0.38	31	0.30	17	0.34
Osinska 1989	35	0.53	26	0.01	23	0.08	30	0.23	39	0.20	35	0.21
Pachmann 1927	82	0.37	85	0.00	84	0.03	84	0.03	54	0.06	81	0.04
Paderewski 1930	81	0.38	88	0.00	85	0.03	82	0.03	86	0.03	86	0.03
Perlemuter 1992	24	0.55	46	0.00	35	0.05	32	0.20	16	0.43	22	0.29
Pierdomenico 2008	67	0.43	79	0.00	71	0.04	68	0.04	30	0.24	61	0.10
Poblocka 1999	26	0.55	44	0.00	43	0.07	39	0.13	42	0.17	44	0.15
Rabcewiczowa 1932	53	0.50	65	0.00	53	0.06	51	0.06	27	0.25	52	0.12
Rachmaninoff 1923	17	0.58	25	0.01	13	0.10	5	0.52	5	0.55	3	0.53
Rangell 2001	79	0.39	30	0.01	73	0.04	72	0.04	59	0.05	85	0.04
Richter 1976	27	0.55	42	0.00	28	0.04	44	0.10	25	0.37	40	0.19
Rosen 1989	32	0.54	17	0.01	21	0.08	19	0.31	25	0.33	21	0.32
Rosenthal 1930	69	0.43	41	0.00	64	0.04	76	0.04	29	0.31	58	0.11
Rosenthal 1931	76	0.40	72	0.00	76	0.04	66	0.04	18	0.53	46	0.15
Rosenthal 1931b	83	0.36	52	0.00	80	0.03	83	0.03	26	0.36	64	0.10
Rosenthal 1931c	75	0.40	45	0.00	79	0.04	75	0.04	37	0.23	65	0.10
Rosenthal 1931d	85	0.34	50	0.00	81	0.03	85	0.03	42	0.14	77	0.06
Rossi 2007	80	0.38	62	0.00	82	0.02	87	0.02	47	0.07	79	0.04
Rubinstein 1939	56	0.50	20	0.01	61	0.06	47	0.06	8	0.47	41	0.17
Rubinstein 1952	66	0.43	24	0.01	63	0.04	79	0.04	44	0.11	74	0.07
Rubinstein 1966	23	0.55	47	0.00	37	0.06	33	0.20	22	0.43	24	0.29
Schilhawsky 1960	42	0.53	58	0.00	49	0.05	55	0.05	41	0.17	66	0.09
Shebanova 2002	14	0.58	11	0.02	12	0.09	10	0.45	22	0.46	12	0.45
Smith 1975	37	0.53	74	0.00	46	0.06	45	0.06	51	0.07	75	0.06
Sokolov 2002	25	0.55	53	0.00	29	0.05	29	0.25	26	0.33	23	0.29
Sztompka 1959	10	0.61	21	0.01	16	0.09	11	0.44	15	0.43	13	0.43
Tomsic 1995	52	0.50	8	0.03	41	0.06	42	0.12	13	0.45	34	0.23
Uninsky 1932	19	0.57	77	0.00	36	0.05	35	0.18	19	0.44	25	0.28
Uninsky 1971	44	0.52	63	0.00	52	0.06	49	0.06	60	0.05	78	0.05
Wasowski 1980	33	0.54	48	0.00	51	0.05	53	0.05	23	0.31	50	0.12
Zak 1937	39	0.53	81	0.00	38	0.05	34	0.19	36	0.23	36	0.21
Zak 1951	31	0.54	78	0.00	34	0.06	27	0.27	40	0.21	33	0.24
Random 1	90	-0.07	89	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	67	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2	88	0.00	86	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	12	0.40	67	0.09
Random 3	89	-0.04	90	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	53	0.04	88	0.03

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).