Brailowsky 1960

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		42	0.41	40	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	27	0.34	37	0.20
Anderszewski 2003		14	0.55	14	0.01	20	0.11	15	0.56	33	0.34	21	0.44
Ashkenazy 1981		70	0.31	43	0.00	68	0.04	76	0.04	78	0.03	81	0.03
Bacha 2000		59	0.35	48	0.00	51	0.05	63	0.05	62	0.04	64	0.04
Badura 1965		62	0.33	49	0.00	71	0.03	79	0.03	63	0.04	80	0.03
Barbosa 1983		9	0.58	18	0.00	8	0.17	13	0.61	26	0.38	19	0.48
Biret 1990		18	0.52	41	0.00	15	0.14	14	0.57	34	0.34	22	0.44
Blet 2003		46	0.40	26	0.00	46	0.06	52	0.06	37	0.16	51	0.10
Block 1995		13	0.56	17	0.01	9	0.16	12	0.62	8	0.65	8	0.63
Blumental 1952		1	0.65	2	0.20	2	0.36	1	0.76	2	0.76	1	0.76
Boshniakovich 1969		60	0.35	70	0.00	60	0.06	58	0.06	82	0.03	72	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Bunin 1987		66	0.32	74	0.00	76	0.04	74	0.04	48	0.06	62	0.05
Bunin 1987b		73	0.29	60	0.00	77	0.04	75	0.04	63	0.05	67	0.04
Chiu 1999		63	0.33	85	0.00	67	0.04	68	0.04	71	0.04	65	0.04
Cohen 1997		77	0.27	35	0.00	64	0.04	73	0.04	49	0.05	73	0.04
Cortot 1951		71	0.31	61	0.00	47	0.07	47	0.07	44	0.21	46	0.12
Csalog 1996		43	0.41	71	0.00	58	0.06	62	0.06	63	0.05	58	0.05
Czerny 1949		61	0.34	52	0.00	65	0.06	59	0.06	81	0.03	71	0.04
Czerny 1990		23	0.51	16	0.01	21	0.10	20	0.53	40	0.25	25	0.36
Duchoud 2007		87	0.06	76	0.00	87	0.01	87	0.01	88	0.02	91	0.01
Ezaki 2006		19	0.52	15	0.01	22	0.09	28	0.42	39	0.18	31	0.27
Falvay 1989		6	0.61	10	0.01	10	0.17	8	0.69	29	0.47	14	0.57
Farrell 1958		72	0.31	56	0.00	70	0.03	80	0.03	74	0.04	76	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		20	0.52	9	0.01	19	0.13	19	0.53	5	0.69	12	0.60
Fliere 1977		4	0.62	3	0.13	5	0.33	5	0.72	9	0.59	7	0.65
Fou 1978		17	0.52	46	0.00	26	0.10	23	0.49	26	0.33	24	0.40
Francois 1956		80	0.22	86	0.00	80	0.06	60	0.06	76	0.03	74	0.04
Friedman 1923		56	0.37	51	0.00	49	0.05	65	0.05	24	0.40	43	0.14
Friedman 1923b		58	0.36	58	0.00	50	0.06	51	0.06	29	0.36	41	0.15
Friedman 1930		68	0.32	87	0.00	55	0.07	50	0.07	40	0.20	44	0.12
Garcia 2007		83	0.14	77	0.00	84	0.03	83	0.03	86	0.02	84	0.02
Garcia 2007b		76	0.28	44	0.00	73	0.03	78	0.03	74	0.04	82	0.03
Gierzod 1998		33	0.48	50	0.00	28	0.11	27	0.45	48	0.08	38	0.19
Gornostaeva 1994		47	0.40	78	0.00	61	0.08	46	0.08	53	0.05	55	0.06
Groot 1988		16	0.54	30	0.00	14	0.20	11	0.63	9	0.53	13	0.58
Harasiewicz 1955		31	0.49	21	0.00	34	0.08	33	0.38	49	0.07	39	0.16
Hatto 1993		21	0.51	36	0.00	29	0.11	31	0.40	35	0.25	28	0.32
Hatto 1997		27	0.50	79	0.00	35	0.08	36	0.33	40	0.21	32	0.26
Horowitz 1949		29	0.49	6	0.05	12	0.22	16	0.55	2	0.66	11	0.60
Indjic 1988		26	0.50	53	0.00	36	0.11	35	0.33	41	0.17	34	0.24
Kapell 1951		44	0.41	22	0.00	52	0.06	57	0.06	59	0.06	54	0.06
Kissin 1993		67	0.32	62	0.00	75	0.04	72	0.04	73	0.04	70	0.04
Kushner 1989		40	0.43	80	0.00	42	0.06	40	0.23	59	0.05	49	0.11
Luisada 1991		8	0.58	8	0.02	11	0.22	9	0.66	2	0.73	5	0.69
Lushtak 2004		24	0.50	12	0.01	30	0.09	30	0.42	40	0.23	30	0.31
Malcuzynski 1961		51	0.39	57	0.00	57	0.06	56	0.06	73	0.03	68	0.04
Magaloff 1978		11	0.57	25	0.00	16	0.13	18	0.54	12	0.54	17	0.54
Magin 1975		36	0.46	37	0.00	31	0.08	37	0.29	37	0.19	36	0.23
Michalowski 1933		82	0.14	81	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	76	0.03	78	0.03
Milkina 1970		34	0.48	33	0.00	37	0.12	34	0.34	56	0.06	42	0.14
Mohovich 1999		12	0.57	13	0.01	13	0.17	10	0.64	20	0.50	15	0.57
Moravec 1969		15	0.54	20	0.00	23	0.09	22	0.49	22	0.42	20	0.45
Morozova 2008		75	0.28	88	0.00	74	0.04	69	0.04	78	0.03	79	0.03
Neighaus 1950		79	0.25	65	0.00	69	0.05	66	0.05	48	0.06	63	0.05
Niedzielski 1931		64	0.33	39	0.00	41	0.07	44	0.13	14	0.41	35	0.23
Ohlsson 1999		74	0.28	66	0.00	78	0.06	53	0.06	85	0.02	77	0.03
Osinska 1989		38	0.44	23	0.00	38	0.08	39	0.23	63	0.05	47	0.11
Pachmann 1927		84	0.11	63	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	90	0.01	90	0.01
Paderewski 1930		89	0.00	54	0.00	86	0.02	85	0.02	85	0.02	83	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		78	0.26	29	0.00	79	0.07	48	0.07	76	0.03	56	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		86	0.06	82	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	89	0.01	89	0.01
Poblocka 1999		2	0.65	1	0.22	1	0.22	3	0.74	8	0.64	6	0.69
Rabcewiczowa 1932		57	0.37	67	0.00	40	0.07	42	0.19	46	0.06	48	0.11
Rachmaninoff 1923		5	0.62	5	0.09	3	0.31	6	0.71	2	0.74	3	0.72
Rangell 2001		81	0.18	47	0.00	83	0.03	82	0.03	87	0.02	87	0.02
Richter 1976		41	0.43	72	0.00	44	0.07	43	0.15	43	0.16	40	0.15
Rosen 1989		45	0.40	68	0.00	53	0.06	61	0.06	67	0.04	61	0.05
Rosenthal 1930		10	0.58	11	0.01	7	0.20	7	0.69	5	0.80	2	0.74
Rosenthal 1931		28	0.49	19	0.00	18	0.12	17	0.54	5	0.71	9	0.62
Rosenthal 1931b		39	0.44	31	0.00	32	0.07	32	0.39	6	0.63	18	0.50
Rosenthal 1931c		30	0.49	42	0.00	24	0.10	26	0.47	8	0.64	16	0.55
Rosenthal 1931d		25	0.50	55	0.00	17	0.10	21	0.52	5	0.74	10	0.62
Rossi 2007		85	0.07	89	0.00	88	0.01	88	0.01	90	0.01	88	0.01
Rubinstein 1939		53	0.38	34	0.00	59	0.06	54	0.06	44	0.09	53	0.07
Rubinstein 1952		22	0.51	24	0.00	27	0.11	25	0.47	36	0.25	27	0.34
Rubinstein 1966		37	0.45	32	0.00	43	0.08	41	0.19	70	0.04	52	0.09
Schilhawsky 1960		48	0.40	75	0.00	48	0.05	64	0.05	54	0.05	59	0.05
Shebanova 2002		54	0.38	27	0.00	56	0.06	55	0.06	68	0.04	60	0.05
Smith 1975		7	0.61	7	0.03	6	0.17	4	0.73	2	0.72	4	0.72
Sokolov 2002		65	0.32	83	0.00	66	0.04	71	0.04	65	0.03	75	0.03
Sztompka 1959		49	0.39	45	0.00	39	0.06	38	0.25	38	0.23	33	0.24
Tomsic 1995		69	0.32	73	0.00	72	0.04	77	0.04	59	0.06	57	0.05
Uninsky 1932		55	0.37	90	0.00	54	0.07	49	0.07	38	0.22	45	0.12
Uninsky 1971		32	0.49	59	0.00	25	0.09	24	0.48	35	0.35	23	0.41
Wasowski 1980		35	0.47	38	0.00	33	0.07	29	0.42	38	0.23	29	0.31
Zak 1937		50	0.39	84	0.00	62	0.04	70	0.04	63	0.04	66	0.04
Zak 1951		52	0.39	28	0.00	63	0.05	67	0.05	66	0.04	69	0.04
Average		3	0.63	4	0.12	4	0.23	2	0.75	44	0.15	26	0.34
Random 1		90	-0.07	69	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	58	0.04	85	0.02
Random 2		88	0.04	64	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	14	0.39	50	0.11
Random 3		91	-0.09	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	61	0.03	86	0.02

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).