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		11	0.65	18	0.01	22	0.10	12	0.38	46	0.06	29	0.15
Anderszewski 2003		23	0.61	27	0.01	13	0.12	13	0.38	34	0.23	12	0.30
Ashkenazy 1981		9	0.68	14	0.01	15	0.07	15	0.35	33	0.21	14	0.27
Bacha 2000		45	0.54	20	0.01	62	0.03	61	0.03	76	0.03	78	0.03
Badura 1965		43	0.54	46	0.00	41	0.07	34	0.18	37	0.30	19	0.23
Barbosa 1983		86	0.36	54	0.00	60	0.03	72	0.03	56	0.05	72	0.04
Biret 1990		10	0.66	32	0.00	24	0.04	27	0.22	53	0.05	40	0.10
Blet 2003		79	0.43	55	0.00	74	0.03	82	0.03	67	0.04	83	0.03
Block 1995		84	0.40	84	0.00	55	0.03	76	0.03	60	0.04	87	0.03
Blumental 1952		53	0.52	35	0.00	67	0.03	65	0.03	83	0.03	88	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		16	0.64	31	0.00	9	0.13	9	0.41	28	0.35	3	0.38
Brailowsky 1960		66	0.49	90	0.00	66	0.04	55	0.04	47	0.06	60	0.05
Bunin 1987		47	0.53	61	0.00	28	0.04	36	0.16	17	0.45	15	0.27
Bunin 1987b		57	0.52	67	0.00	29	0.07	37	0.16	17	0.45	13	0.27
Chiu 1999		73	0.46	73	0.00	38	0.05	45	0.11	68	0.03	58	0.06
Cohen 1997		85	0.37	76	0.00	86	0.03	83	0.03	45	0.10	64	0.05
Cortot 1951		46	0.53	79	0.00	45	0.06	43	0.12	39	0.14	34	0.13
Csalog 1996		75	0.46	49	0.00	58	0.03	75	0.03	63	0.04	82	0.03
Czerny 1949		38	0.56	57	0.00	36	0.04	33	0.19	46	0.07	35	0.12
Czerny 1990		49	0.53	74	0.00	52	0.05	49	0.05	86	0.03	76	0.04
Duchoud 2007		3	0.70	17	0.01	6	0.10	8	0.42	4	0.53	2	0.47
Ezaki 2006		31	0.58	6	0.04	14	0.07	16	0.35	37	0.19	16	0.26
Falvay 1989		81	0.43	11	0.02	53	0.03	58	0.03	54	0.07	61	0.05
Farrell 1958		35	0.57	23	0.01	43	0.05	44	0.11	53	0.06	45	0.08
Ferenczy 1958		82	0.42	70	0.00	71	0.03	81	0.03	56	0.05	73	0.04
Fliere 1977		19	0.63	37	0.00	21	0.07	19	0.33	55	0.05	32	0.13
Fou 1978		26	0.60	24	0.01	39	0.04	40	0.14	63	0.04	48	0.07
Francois 1956		64	0.51	47	0.00	77	0.03	70	0.03	62	0.04	90	0.03
Friedman 1923		70	0.48	45	0.00	72	0.04	56	0.04	72	0.04	77	0.04
Friedman 1923b		71	0.47	59	0.00	73	0.03	77	0.03	54	0.05	75	0.04
Friedman 1930		74	0.46	77	0.00	75	0.03	80	0.03	81	0.03	85	0.03
Garcia 2007		21	0.62	65	0.00	34	0.05	32	0.20	53	0.06	37	0.11
Garcia 2007b		22	0.61	72	0.00	37	0.06	31	0.21	58	0.05	41	0.10
Gierzod 1998		6	0.69	3	0.06	8	0.14	3	0.50	31	0.26	7	0.36
Gornostaeva 1994		25	0.60	9	0.02	19	0.06	21	0.31	13	0.35	8	0.33
Groot 1988		48	0.53	87	0.00	46	0.05	50	0.05	48	0.07	59	0.06
Harasiewicz 1955		27	0.60	7	0.03	3	0.16	6	0.48	29	0.28	6	0.37
Hatto 1993		59	0.52	85	0.00	65	0.05	48	0.05	52	0.06	65	0.05
Hatto 1997		60	0.52	80	0.00	63	0.03	64	0.03	71	0.04	86	0.03
Horowitz 1949		62	0.51	89	0.00	59	0.03	66	0.03	50	0.08	62	0.05
Indjic 1988		56	0.52	86	0.00	64	0.04	53	0.04	71	0.04	71	0.04
Kapell 1951		20	0.63	36	0.00	12	0.09	14	0.37	41	0.10	24	0.19
Kissin 1993		17	0.64	21	0.01	23	0.05	17	0.34	47	0.05	33	0.13
Kushner 1989		14	0.64	22	0.01	25	0.05	22	0.28	40	0.14	20	0.20
Luisada 1991		33	0.58	25	0.01	42	0.06	39	0.15	56	0.05	42	0.09
Lushtak 2004		37	0.56	15	0.01	40	0.05	38	0.16	51	0.05	44	0.09
Malcuzynski 1961		63	0.51	34	0.00	56	0.03	60	0.03	34	0.17	49	0.07
Magaloff 1978		40	0.55	12	0.02	18	0.05	42	0.12	45	0.16	30	0.14
Magin 1975		15	0.64	19	0.01	10	0.14	11	0.39	28	0.26	9	0.32
Michalowski 1933		29	0.60	30	0.01	33	0.04	28	0.22	32	0.26	18	0.24
Milkina 1970		13	0.64	33	0.00	26	0.06	24	0.26	43	0.15	21	0.20
Mohovich 1999		24	0.61	58	0.00	35	0.05	25	0.24	52	0.06	36	0.12
Moravec 1969		87	0.36	38	0.00	87	0.03	63	0.03	72	0.04	79	0.03
Morozova 2008		36	0.56	51	0.00	44	0.06	41	0.13	68	0.04	52	0.07
Neighaus 1950		12	0.65	81	0.00	20	0.05	20	0.32	39	0.13	22	0.20
Niedzielski 1931		80	0.43	64	0.00	70	0.02	87	0.02	56	0.04	80	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		1	0.77	1	0.38	1	0.38	2	0.61	10	0.51	1	0.56
Osinska 1989		42	0.54	68	0.00	48	0.04	54	0.04	53	0.05	67	0.04
Pachmann 1927		77	0.44	28	0.01	54	0.03	68	0.03	20	0.34	38	0.10
Paderewski 1930		55	0.52	69	0.00	69	0.02	85	0.02	74	0.03	91	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		32	0.58	42	0.00	27	0.06	29	0.21	65	0.04	43	0.09
Pierdomenico 2008		67	0.49	75	0.00	81	0.03	79	0.03	63	0.05	69	0.04
Poblocka 1999		39	0.55	52	0.00	30	0.05	23	0.28	44	0.12	26	0.18
Rabcewiczowa 1932		61	0.52	62	0.00	76	0.03	62	0.03	73	0.04	81	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		18	0.63	26	0.01	16	0.06	18	0.33	30	0.20	17	0.26
Rangell 2001		41	0.55	39	0.00	57	0.03	67	0.03	25	0.33	39	0.10
Richter 1976		69	0.48	16	0.01	51	0.05	47	0.05	32	0.37	31	0.14
Rosen 1989		30	0.59	48	0.00	47	0.05	51	0.05	77	0.04	74	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		28	0.60	40	0.00	31	0.05	26	0.24	9	0.44	11	0.32
Rosenthal 1931		54	0.52	91	0.00	78	0.03	73	0.03	35	0.17	51	0.07
Rosenthal 1931b		52	0.52	82	0.00	79	0.03	71	0.03	36	0.16	56	0.07
Rosenthal 1931c		51	0.53	43	0.00	68	0.02	86	0.02	28	0.23	57	0.07
Rosenthal 1931d		58	0.52	41	0.00	80	0.03	59	0.03	30	0.21	47	0.08
Rossi 2007		88	0.34	66	0.00	88	0.03	78	0.03	62	0.05	68	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		72	0.47	60	0.00	84	0.03	69	0.03	56	0.05	70	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		76	0.45	13	0.01	83	0.03	84	0.03	74	0.04	89	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		68	0.48	56	0.00	82	0.02	88	0.02	63	0.04	84	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		44	0.54	29	0.01	32	0.05	35	0.18	41	0.18	27	0.18
Shebanova 2002		4	0.69	71	0.00	7	0.13	7	0.45	37	0.23	10	0.32
Smith 1975		34	0.57	5	0.05	17	0.06	30	0.21	33	0.17	23	0.19
Sokolov 2002		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Sztompka 1959		5	0.69	8	0.02	11	0.10	10	0.39	54	0.06	28	0.15
Tomsic 1995		83	0.40	44	0.00	85	0.04	57	0.04	44	0.11	50	0.07
Uninsky 1932		65	0.49	50	0.00	49	0.05	52	0.05	56	0.06	63	0.05
Uninsky 1971		78	0.44	53	0.00	50	0.06	46	0.06	44	0.12	46	0.08
Wasowski 1980		50	0.53	83	0.00	61	0.03	74	0.03	63	0.05	66	0.04
Zak 1937		8	0.68	2	0.07	4	0.12	4	0.50	21	0.27	4	0.37
Zak 1951		7	0.68	10	0.02	5	0.16	5	0.50	21	0.28	5	0.37
Average		2	0.73	4	0.05	2	0.23	1	0.63	47	0.06	25	0.19
Random 1		91	-0.18	63	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	7	0.50	54	0.07
Random 2		89	0.08	88	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	5	0.48	53	0.07
Random 3		90	-0.03	78	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	10	0.48	55	0.07

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).