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		12	0.68	32	0.00	25	0.08	17	0.42	40	0.20	30	0.29
Anderszewski 2003		15	0.66	24	0.01	11	0.08	15	0.44	10	0.46	8	0.45
Ashkenazy 1981		8	0.69	19	0.01	15	0.08	14	0.44	28	0.30	22	0.36
Bacha 2000		72	0.48	52	0.00	80	0.02	86	0.02	77	0.03	91	0.02
Badura 1965		54	0.56	13	0.02	20	0.06	32	0.34	18	0.38	21	0.36
Barbosa 1983		77	0.44	29	0.00	61	0.04	54	0.04	48	0.07	59	0.05
Biret 1990		7	0.69	23	0.01	30	0.08	26	0.37	24	0.28	28	0.32
Blet 2003		50	0.57	69	0.00	44	0.04	44	0.08	46	0.06	50	0.07
Block 1995		76	0.45	70	0.00	68	0.03	77	0.03	77	0.03	85	0.03
Blumental 1952		74	0.45	25	0.01	60	0.04	53	0.04	69	0.03	86	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		44	0.59	74	0.00	53	0.05	48	0.05	65	0.04	71	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		68	0.50	72	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	73	0.04	77	0.03
Bunin 1987		19	0.65	5	0.04	8	0.09	7	0.48	8	0.52	4	0.50
Bunin 1987b		22	0.65	40	0.00	9	0.09	9	0.48	8	0.52	2	0.50
Chiu 1999		80	0.42	84	0.00	73	0.03	75	0.03	70	0.03	78	0.03
Cohen 1997		88	0.32	51	0.00	87	0.03	79	0.03	75	0.03	87	0.03
Cortot 1951		29	0.63	78	0.00	36	0.09	37	0.29	18	0.38	26	0.33
Csalog 1996		78	0.44	36	0.00	66	0.03	67	0.03	68	0.04	83	0.03
Czerny 1949		27	0.63	12	0.03	23	0.07	23	0.39	29	0.30	25	0.34
Czerny 1990		14	0.67	62	0.00	29	0.08	24	0.38	38	0.15	34	0.24
Duchoud 2007		2	0.76	3	0.06	2	0.16	2	0.57	4	0.55	1	0.56
Ezaki 2006		10	0.69	9	0.03	6	0.12	4	0.50	11	0.45	6	0.47
Falvay 1989		64	0.52	42	0.00	47	0.05	49	0.05	54	0.06	56	0.05
Farrell 1958		48	0.58	27	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	66	0.04	54	0.06
Ferenczy 1958		59	0.54	55	0.00	59	0.04	62	0.04	37	0.14	51	0.07
Fliere 1977		9	0.69	54	0.00	26	0.07	33	0.34	44	0.12	35	0.20
Fou 1978		60	0.54	67	0.00	65	0.04	56	0.04	61	0.04	64	0.04
Francois 1956		45	0.58	37	0.00	42	0.07	42	0.14	45	0.11	43	0.12
Friedman 1923		85	0.36	65	0.00	77	0.03	71	0.03	58	0.06	75	0.04
Friedman 1923b		84	0.36	75	0.00	76	0.02	88	0.02	49	0.07	72	0.04
Friedman 1930		79	0.44	83	0.00	64	0.04	61	0.04	54	0.05	68	0.04
Garcia 2007		58	0.54	80	0.00	55	0.04	63	0.04	30	0.30	44	0.11
Garcia 2007b		81	0.41	91	0.00	74	0.03	68	0.03	60	0.04	90	0.03
Gierzod 1998		11	0.68	8	0.03	28	0.07	25	0.38	37	0.20	31	0.28
Gornostaeva 1994		20	0.65	17	0.01	22	0.07	20	0.40	19	0.38	16	0.39
Groot 1988		42	0.59	46	0.00	41	0.07	40	0.20	55	0.04	47	0.09
Harasiewicz 1955		43	0.59	4	0.04	4	0.21	5	0.49	15	0.42	9	0.45
Hatto 1993		67	0.51	79	0.00	58	0.04	52	0.04	64	0.04	74	0.04
Hatto 1997		55	0.54	68	0.00	54	0.04	66	0.04	34	0.16	49	0.08
Horowitz 1949		65	0.52	77	0.00	69	0.03	78	0.03	53	0.05	65	0.04
Indjic 1988		63	0.52	85	0.00	57	0.06	46	0.06	41	0.13	46	0.09
Kapell 1951		6	0.70	14	0.02	7	0.10	8	0.48	18	0.37	11	0.42
Kissin 1993		37	0.60	44	0.00	50	0.04	59	0.04	71	0.03	82	0.03
Kushner 1989		5	0.70	15	0.02	21	0.07	16	0.43	24	0.35	14	0.39
Luisada 1991		52	0.57	18	0.01	46	0.04	55	0.04	62	0.04	62	0.04
Lushtak 2004		28	0.63	60	0.00	16	0.07	13	0.44	28	0.24	27	0.32
Malcuzynski 1961		23	0.64	31	0.00	39	0.10	36	0.30	22	0.28	29	0.29
Magaloff 1978		34	0.62	7	0.03	14	0.09	41	0.18	42	0.14	38	0.16
Magin 1975		21	0.65	22	0.01	34	0.10	22	0.39	17	0.31	23	0.35
Michalowski 1933		53	0.56	30	0.00	32	0.06	29	0.35	14	0.42	17	0.38
Milkina 1970		33	0.62	49	0.00	49	0.05	47	0.05	61	0.05	58	0.05
Mohovich 1999		25	0.63	28	0.00	38	0.08	30	0.35	50	0.06	39	0.14
Moravec 1969		75	0.45	39	0.00	83	0.03	85	0.03	82	0.03	76	0.03
Morozova 2008		32	0.62	43	0.00	35	0.11	31	0.35	33	0.20	32	0.26
Neighaus 1950		16	0.66	33	0.00	33	0.07	28	0.35	44	0.10	36	0.19
Niedzielski 1931		73	0.47	86	0.00	72	0.03	83	0.03	74	0.03	80	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		3	0.76	2	0.09	3	0.22	3	0.55	9	0.45	3	0.50
Osinska 1989		46	0.58	50	0.00	48	0.04	60	0.04	61	0.04	63	0.04
Pachmann 1927		83	0.39	71	0.00	84	0.03	76	0.03	62	0.05	66	0.04
Paderewski 1930		61	0.54	61	0.00	75	0.03	84	0.03	75	0.03	81	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		31	0.62	81	0.00	18	0.11	19	0.41	21	0.34	19	0.37
Pierdomenico 2008		57	0.54	59	0.00	67	0.03	72	0.03	49	0.07	57	0.05
Poblocka 1999		26	0.63	45	0.00	37	0.11	38	0.29	45	0.09	37	0.16
Rabcewiczowa 1932		41	0.59	47	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.10	38	0.16	41	0.13
Rachmaninoff 1923		18	0.66	10	0.03	5	0.11	10	0.48	8	0.49	5	0.48
Rangell 2001		62	0.53	64	0.00	70	0.03	81	0.03	66	0.03	88	0.03
Richter 1976		39	0.60	20	0.01	31	0.06	35	0.31	14	0.44	20	0.37
Rosen 1989		49	0.57	66	0.00	63	0.04	64	0.04	56	0.04	70	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		13	0.67	57	0.00	27	0.09	27	0.36	8	0.61	7	0.47
Rosenthal 1931		66	0.52	82	0.00	71	0.03	80	0.03	31	0.20	48	0.08
Rosenthal 1931b		69	0.49	63	0.00	79	0.03	73	0.03	40	0.09	61	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		38	0.60	76	0.00	52	0.04	57	0.04	15	0.47	40	0.14
Rosenthal 1931d		70	0.49	87	0.00	82	0.03	74	0.03	48	0.06	73	0.04
Rossi 2007		86	0.36	41	0.00	81	0.02	87	0.02	35	0.18	53	0.06
Rubinstein 1939		87	0.35	73	0.00	88	0.03	70	0.03	85	0.03	79	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		82	0.41	38	0.00	86	0.03	69	0.03	80	0.03	89	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		71	0.48	48	0.00	85	0.04	65	0.04	58	0.05	67	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		24	0.64	89	0.00	17	0.09	12	0.46	25	0.39	12	0.42
Shebanova 2002		36	0.61	58	0.00	51	0.04	58	0.04	74	0.04	69	0.04
Smith 1975		17	0.66	6	0.03	13	0.08	11	0.47	21	0.35	13	0.41
Sokolov 2002		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Sztompka 1959		4	0.71	11	0.03	12	0.09	6	0.49	20	0.40	10	0.44
Tomsic 1995		56	0.54	26	0.01	62	0.05	51	0.05	37	0.19	45	0.10
Uninsky 1932		51	0.57	53	0.00	19	0.07	34	0.32	29	0.36	24	0.34
Uninsky 1971		40	0.60	16	0.02	10	0.10	18	0.42	24	0.36	15	0.39
Wasowski 1980		47	0.58	35	0.00	56	0.05	50	0.05	59	0.05	55	0.05
Zak 1937		35	0.61	34	0.00	40	0.10	39	0.27	58	0.06	42	0.13
Zak 1951		30	0.62	21	0.01	24	0.08	21	0.39	38	0.15	33	0.24
Average		1	0.79	1	0.31	1	0.31	1	0.74	34	0.20	18	0.38
Random 1		91	-0.09	56	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	8	0.48	52	0.07
Random 2		90	-0.01	88	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	44	0.08	84	0.03
Random 3		89	0.01	90	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	18	0.29	60	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).