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		20	0.61	50	0.00	33	0.07	33	0.28	25	0.21	38	0.24
Anderszewski 2003		25	0.59	62	0.00	23	0.09	15	0.41	14	0.50	13	0.45
Ashkenazy 1981		22	0.60	37	0.00	22	0.09	22	0.38	33	0.23	34	0.30
Bacha 2000		74	0.37	79	0.00	83	0.03	82	0.03	81	0.03	75	0.03
Badura 1965		62	0.46	60	0.00	38	0.06	41	0.19	20	0.38	35	0.27
Barbosa 1983		68	0.42	80	0.00	58	0.07	47	0.07	45	0.10	54	0.08
Biret 1990		23	0.60	18	0.01	40	0.08	37	0.26	21	0.45	31	0.34
Blet 2003		35	0.56	88	0.00	44	0.09	42	0.17	33	0.25	39	0.21
Block 1995		59	0.46	20	0.00	52	0.04	64	0.04	38	0.16	55	0.08
Blumental 1952		77	0.36	42	0.00	53	0.04	65	0.04	52	0.05	74	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		60	0.46	48	0.00	71	0.03	72	0.03	66	0.03	83	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		65	0.44	55	0.00	76	0.02	86	0.02	51	0.05	76	0.03
Bunin 1987		5	0.68	25	0.00	4	0.24	7	0.50	8	0.53	7	0.51
Bunin 1987b		6	0.68	24	0.00	5	0.26	8	0.50	8	0.53	6	0.51
Chiu 1999		78	0.36	57	0.00	68	0.03	67	0.03	51	0.05	67	0.04
Cohen 1997		83	0.26	21	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	73	0.03	90	0.02
Cortot 1951		27	0.59	66	0.00	36	0.07	31	0.31	6	0.57	19	0.42
Csalog 1996		71	0.39	23	0.00	69	0.03	68	0.03	50	0.06	70	0.04
Czerny 1949		14	0.63	11	0.01	14	0.10	9	0.48	12	0.64	2	0.55
Czerny 1990		12	0.64	36	0.00	16	0.07	23	0.37	18	0.36	28	0.36
Duchoud 2007		8	0.66	31	0.00	8	0.10	11	0.47	8	0.50	10	0.48
Ezaki 2006		10	0.66	17	0.01	10	0.11	12	0.46	20	0.38	17	0.42
Falvay 1989		44	0.53	82	0.00	50	0.05	53	0.05	43	0.08	58	0.06
Farrell 1958		67	0.43	89	0.00	81	0.03	79	0.03	66	0.03	77	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		45	0.53	39	0.00	48	0.06	51	0.06	20	0.39	45	0.15
Fliere 1977		16	0.61	32	0.00	43	0.07	43	0.17	46	0.08	48	0.12
Fou 1978		70	0.42	38	0.00	72	0.03	70	0.03	78	0.03	78	0.03
Francois 1956		17	0.61	46	0.00	15	0.08	21	0.38	17	0.42	22	0.40
Friedman 1923		87	0.22	61	0.00	74	0.03	71	0.03	43	0.12	59	0.06
Friedman 1923b		85	0.23	49	0.00	73	0.03	75	0.03	43	0.10	66	0.05
Friedman 1930		75	0.37	45	0.00	56	0.05	57	0.05	35	0.27	50	0.12
Garcia 2007		84	0.25	67	0.00	79	0.03	81	0.03	57	0.05	72	0.04
Garcia 2007b		88	0.17	78	0.00	87	0.02	83	0.02	82	0.02	91	0.02
Gierzod 1998		38	0.56	26	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.13	34	0.17	46	0.15
Gornostaeva 1994		9	0.66	9	0.02	13	0.09	13	0.42	17	0.42	18	0.42
Groot 1988		26	0.59	70	0.00	37	0.06	38	0.22	41	0.15	42	0.18
Harasiewicz 1955		41	0.55	3	0.05	3	0.19	3	0.56	5	0.49	4	0.52
Hatto 1993		63	0.45	63	0.00	39	0.07	39	0.21	22	0.31	37	0.26
Hatto 1997		46	0.53	12	0.01	20	0.08	29	0.35	17	0.44	24	0.39
Horowitz 1949		61	0.46	83	0.00	63	0.05	54	0.05	71	0.04	69	0.04
Indjic 1988		51	0.48	27	0.00	26	0.09	34	0.27	21	0.34	33	0.30
Kapell 1951		4	0.68	4	0.05	12	0.12	6	0.50	4	0.53	5	0.51
Kissin 1993		48	0.51	71	0.00	60	0.05	60	0.05	56	0.05	63	0.05
Kushner 1989		13	0.63	22	0.00	35	0.07	35	0.27	19	0.36	32	0.31
Luisada 1991		54	0.48	77	0.00	65	0.05	61	0.05	59	0.05	60	0.05
Lushtak 2004		43	0.54	84	0.00	19	0.07	27	0.35	26	0.35	30	0.35
Malcuzynski 1961		3	0.70	6	0.02	9	0.11	5	0.52	16	0.40	12	0.46
Magaloff 1978		15	0.62	15	0.01	30	0.07	32	0.31	43	0.12	41	0.19
Magin 1975		18	0.61	10	0.01	28	0.08	26	0.36	11	0.44	21	0.40
Michalowski 1933		56	0.47	19	0.00	27	0.08	17	0.41	3	0.57	9	0.48
Milkina 1970		47	0.53	14	0.01	54	0.04	63	0.04	58	0.04	68	0.04
Mohovich 1999		39	0.56	43	0.00	49	0.06	49	0.06	57	0.05	64	0.05
Moravec 1969		55	0.47	33	0.00	51	0.05	58	0.05	37	0.13	53	0.08
Morozova 2008		29	0.58	34	0.00	21	0.07	18	0.39	16	0.36	27	0.37
Neighaus 1950		21	0.60	44	0.00	29	0.10	30	0.34	44	0.12	40	0.20
Niedzielski 1931		69	0.42	72	0.00	67	0.03	69	0.03	31	0.17	56	0.07
Ohlsson 1999		7	0.67	8	0.02	7	0.10	10	0.48	18	0.35	20	0.41
Osinska 1989		40	0.56	13	0.01	31	0.06	44	0.13	28	0.22	43	0.17
Pachmann 1927		82	0.32	64	0.00	78	0.03	78	0.03	75	0.03	80	0.03
Paderewski 1930		52	0.48	74	0.00	66	0.04	66	0.04	72	0.03	79	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		36	0.56	7	0.02	24	0.08	24	0.37	13	0.49	15	0.43
Pierdomenico 2008		57	0.47	76	0.00	61	0.06	50	0.06	28	0.23	49	0.12
Poblocka 1999		30	0.58	91	0.00	46	0.06	48	0.06	46	0.06	57	0.06
Rabcewiczowa 1932		33	0.57	59	0.00	42	0.06	40	0.21	11	0.58	29	0.35
Rachmaninoff 1923		37	0.56	47	0.00	17	0.08	14	0.41	9	0.52	11	0.46
Rangell 2001		66	0.44	35	0.00	84	0.03	74	0.03	74	0.03	84	0.03
Richter 1976		31	0.58	40	0.00	18	0.07	19	0.39	11	0.40	23	0.39
Rosen 1989		53	0.48	52	0.00	64	0.05	52	0.05	61	0.04	73	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		28	0.58	68	0.00	41	0.10	36	0.26	11	0.56	26	0.38
Rosenthal 1931		76	0.37	90	0.00	77	0.02	84	0.02	53	0.04	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		80	0.34	75	0.00	80	0.02	87	0.02	63	0.04	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		42	0.54	41	0.00	47	0.07	46	0.07	17	0.43	44	0.17
Rosenthal 1931d		79	0.36	69	0.00	82	0.03	76	0.03	65	0.04	85	0.03
Rossi 2007		81	0.33	81	0.00	59	0.05	56	0.05	8	0.42	47	0.14
Rubinstein 1939		86	0.22	73	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	77	0.03	88	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		73	0.38	16	0.01	75	0.03	80	0.03	68	0.04	87	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		72	0.39	53	0.00	86	0.03	77	0.03	77	0.04	82	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		32	0.57	58	0.00	25	0.10	16	0.41	12	0.49	14	0.45
Shebanova 2002		64	0.45	28	0.00	70	0.03	73	0.03	67	0.05	71	0.04
Smith 1975		11	0.66	5	0.03	6	0.14	4	0.55	9	0.50	3	0.52
Sokolov 2002		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Sztompka 1959		19	0.61	86	0.00	34	0.07	25	0.36	22	0.41	25	0.38
Tomsic 1995		24	0.60	30	0.00	32	0.06	28	0.35	30	0.20	36	0.26
Uninsky 1932		34	0.57	56	0.00	11	0.12	20	0.39	14	0.47	16	0.43
Uninsky 1971		2	0.71	1	0.32	1	0.32	2	0.62	5	0.62	1	0.62
Wasowski 1980		49	0.50	29	0.00	55	0.04	62	0.04	38	0.19	51	0.09
Zak 1937		58	0.47	85	0.00	62	0.05	59	0.05	52	0.05	61	0.05
Zak 1951		50	0.49	87	0.00	57	0.05	55	0.05	60	0.05	62	0.05
Average		1	0.78	2	0.29	2	0.40	1	0.76	22	0.32	8	0.49
Random 1		90	0.03	65	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	8	0.45	52	0.09
Random 2		91	-0.02	54	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	64	0.03	89	0.02
Random 3		89	0.06	51	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	26	0.28	65	0.05

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).