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

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).