Sokolov 2002

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		41	0.30	32	0.00	37	0.07	39	0.21	55	0.05	43	0.10
Anderszewski 2003		84	0.11	52	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	77	0.03	88	0.02
Ashkenazy 1981		36	0.32	27	0.00	51	0.04	53	0.04	73	0.05	75	0.04
Bacha 2000		49	0.28	47	0.00	56	0.04	56	0.04	55	0.05	67	0.04
Badura 1965		81	0.12	79	0.00	88	0.01	88	0.01	85	0.03	89	0.02
Barbosa 1983		73	0.20	54	0.00	68	0.03	69	0.03	61	0.05	71	0.04
Biret 1990		26	0.34	11	0.01	18	0.10	23	0.41	26	0.50	14	0.45
Blet 2003		32	0.33	26	0.00	32	0.08	29	0.35	53	0.07	33	0.16
Block 1995		14	0.40	62	0.00	15	0.09	11	0.55	37	0.25	17	0.37
Blumental 1952		66	0.21	59	0.00	70	0.03	77	0.03	69	0.04	84	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		60	0.24	68	0.00	52	0.03	61	0.03	50	0.07	63	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		75	0.18	33	0.00	79	0.02	81	0.02	70	0.04	77	0.03
Bunin 1987		58	0.25	85	0.00	54	0.05	47	0.05	53	0.06	64	0.05
Bunin 1987b		57	0.25	69	0.00	53	0.03	60	0.03	52	0.07	58	0.05
Chiu 1999		23	0.35	21	0.00	49	0.04	51	0.04	65	0.05	68	0.04
Cohen 1997		65	0.21	16	0.01	31	0.07	38	0.23	54	0.06	41	0.12
Cortot 1951		29	0.34	49	0.00	20	0.12	18	0.45	17	0.54	13	0.49
Csalog 1996		43	0.29	34	0.00	59	0.04	57	0.04	58	0.05	72	0.04
Czerny 1949		18	0.38	30	0.00	11	0.14	13	0.52	22	0.67	7	0.59
Czerny 1990		79	0.14	86	0.00	71	0.03	72	0.03	58	0.06	76	0.04
Duchoud 2007		52	0.27	45	0.00	44	0.07	44	0.15	53	0.06	46	0.09
Ezaki 2006		62	0.23	14	0.01	26	0.08	35	0.29	49	0.08	34	0.15
Falvay 1989		25	0.35	70	0.00	30	0.07	27	0.39	38	0.19	24	0.27
Farrell 1958		87	0.09	80	0.00	84	0.02	85	0.02	79	0.03	87	0.02
Ferenczy 1958		78	0.14	36	0.00	83	0.03	80	0.03	44	0.16	51	0.07
Fliere 1977		19	0.37	63	0.00	39	0.08	34	0.29	49	0.09	32	0.16
Fou 1978		68	0.21	44	0.00	78	0.03	70	0.03	79	0.03	79	0.03
Francois 1956		12	0.40	22	0.00	12	0.16	10	0.56	13	0.69	5	0.62
Friedman 1923		63	0.23	41	0.00	65	0.03	67	0.03	57	0.07	66	0.05
Friedman 1923b		59	0.24	20	0.00	63	0.03	62	0.03	56	0.08	65	0.05
Friedman 1930		42	0.29	71	0.00	60	0.03	73	0.03	72	0.04	83	0.03
Garcia 2007		82	0.12	31	0.00	57	0.04	54	0.04	56	0.05	73	0.04
Garcia 2007b		76	0.16	61	0.00	80	0.02	82	0.02	66	0.04	86	0.03
Gierzod 1998		71	0.20	23	0.00	55	0.03	66	0.03	41	0.18	52	0.07
Gornostaeva 1994		2	0.54	1	0.30	1	0.29	2	0.77	6	0.78	1	0.77
Groot 1988		9	0.44	9	0.02	7	0.19	6	0.67	26	0.37	11	0.50
Harasiewicz 1955		5	0.48	10	0.01	6	0.24	5	0.70	13	0.52	6	0.60
Hatto 1993		22	0.36	87	0.00	24	0.08	28	0.38	47	0.12	29	0.21
Hatto 1997		13	0.40	13	0.01	14	0.15	19	0.44	32	0.24	20	0.32
Horowitz 1949		67	0.21	88	0.00	76	0.03	63	0.03	57	0.06	69	0.04
Indjic 1988		16	0.39	48	0.00	17	0.10	20	0.44	55	0.07	31	0.18
Kapell 1951		47	0.28	64	0.00	28	0.06	41	0.20	44	0.10	36	0.14
Kissin 1993		61	0.24	60	0.00	66	0.04	58	0.04	66	0.06	60	0.05
Kushner 1989		38	0.31	35	0.00	41	0.08	43	0.16	40	0.20	30	0.18
Luisada 1991		35	0.33	65	0.00	42	0.07	40	0.20	57	0.06	42	0.11
Lushtak 2004		85	0.11	73	0.00	87	0.01	89	0.01	81	0.03	90	0.02
Malcuzynski 1961		34	0.33	18	0.01	40	0.08	37	0.23	34	0.20	27	0.21
Magaloff 1978		20	0.36	89	0.00	35	0.08	26	0.39	43	0.15	26	0.24
Magin 1975		7	0.45	8	0.02	8	0.18	7	0.65	19	0.63	4	0.64
Michalowski 1933		15	0.40	38	0.00	22	0.12	12	0.55	35	0.34	15	0.43
Milkina 1970		30	0.33	19	0.00	13	0.15	14	0.51	17	0.53	9	0.52
Mohovich 1999		24	0.35	67	0.00	25	0.08	22	0.43	39	0.22	22	0.31
Moravec 1969		44	0.29	55	0.00	36	0.08	33	0.30	49	0.05	40	0.12
Morozova 2008		48	0.28	57	0.00	34	0.08	30	0.33	52	0.06	37	0.14
Neighaus 1950		4	0.49	3	0.10	5	0.24	8	0.65	8	0.53	8	0.59
Niedzielski 1931		54	0.26	66	0.00	58	0.04	55	0.04	54	0.06	56	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		10	0.43	58	0.00	16	0.08	21	0.43	38	0.14	25	0.25
Osinska 1989		3	0.50	5	0.05	3	0.18	4	0.73	9	0.74	2	0.73
Pachmann 1927		39	0.31	72	0.00	50	0.04	49	0.04	44	0.15	48	0.08
Paderewski 1930		33	0.33	15	0.01	33	0.09	24	0.41	38	0.29	19	0.34
Perlemuter 1992		17	0.39	39	0.00	23	0.12	25	0.40	39	0.33	18	0.36
Pierdomenico 2008		37	0.31	81	0.00	46	0.04	52	0.04	36	0.21	45	0.09
Poblocka 1999		77	0.16	82	0.00	81	0.03	74	0.03	78	0.04	78	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		21	0.36	40	0.00	29	0.06	31	0.33	28	0.49	16	0.40
Rachmaninoff 1923		56	0.25	28	0.00	47	0.05	48	0.05	46	0.08	53	0.06
Rangell 2001		80	0.14	29	0.00	77	0.03	78	0.03	74	0.04	85	0.03
Richter 1976		46	0.28	50	0.00	64	0.03	71	0.03	66	0.05	70	0.04
Rosen 1989		28	0.34	7	0.03	21	0.12	16	0.46	45	0.10	28	0.21
Rosenthal 1930		70	0.20	90	0.00	74	0.03	76	0.03	52	0.06	74	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		90	0.06	75	0.00	86	0.02	84	0.02	67	0.04	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		89	0.06	76	0.00	89	0.01	87	0.01	73	0.03	91	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		64	0.23	51	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	51	0.05	55	0.06
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.10	74	0.00	69	0.03	75	0.03	44	0.14	54	0.06
Rossi 2007		72	0.20	43	0.00	73	0.03	64	0.03	31	0.24	47	0.08
Rubinstein 1939		55	0.26	56	0.00	27	0.07	36	0.26	52	0.08	35	0.14
Rubinstein 1952		8	0.45	4	0.07	4	0.21	3	0.75	10	0.61	3	0.68
Rubinstein 1966		69	0.20	77	0.00	72	0.03	65	0.03	76	0.04	81	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		74	0.19	53	0.00	75	0.02	83	0.02	61	0.05	82	0.03
Shebanova 2002		53	0.27	24	0.00	67	0.04	59	0.04	67	0.06	61	0.05
Smith 1975		11	0.42	6	0.04	9	0.15	15	0.50	16	0.53	10	0.51
Sokolov 2002		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Sztompka 1959		51	0.28	91	0.00	48	0.06	46	0.06	65	0.05	59	0.05
Tomsic 1995		31	0.33	17	0.01	19	0.11	17	0.45	34	0.19	23	0.29
Uninsky 1932		27	0.34	42	0.00	38	0.08	32	0.32	57	0.06	38	0.14
Uninsky 1971		6	0.46	12	0.01	10	0.16	9	0.57	16	0.42	12	0.49
Wasowski 1980		40	0.31	37	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.18	64	0.05	44	0.09
Zak 1937		50	0.28	83	0.00	62	0.04	50	0.04	52	0.07	57	0.05
Zak 1951		45	0.29	84	0.00	61	0.03	68	0.03	41	0.15	50	0.07
Average		1	0.54	2	0.23	2	0.24	1	0.78	41	0.12	21	0.31
Random 1		88	0.09	78	0.00	82	0.03	79	0.03	3	0.55	39	0.13
Random 2		91	0.02	46	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	29	0.27	62	0.05
Random 3		83	0.11	25	0.00	85	0.01	86	0.01	5	0.63	49	0.08

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).