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		54	0.37	86	0.00	55	0.05	55	0.05	57	0.04	70	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		30	0.43	55	0.00	15	0.09	16	0.50	52	0.07	26	0.19
Ashkenazy 1981		19	0.45	38	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.14	21	0.37	20	0.23
Bacha 2000		45	0.39	31	0.00	54	0.06	53	0.06	35	0.25	39	0.12
Badura 1965		57	0.36	8	0.01	41	0.06	45	0.11	59	0.05	51	0.07
Barbosa 1983		7	0.49	19	0.00	14	0.12	14	0.51	52	0.08	24	0.20
Biret 1990		11	0.48	34	0.00	20	0.09	12	0.52	48	0.06	27	0.18
Blet 2003		34	0.42	9	0.01	17	0.08	28	0.40	6	0.49	4	0.44
Block 1995		73	0.29	39	0.00	64	0.03	72	0.03	68	0.04	84	0.03
Blumental 1952		17	0.46	17	0.01	21	0.10	17	0.50	39	0.17	15	0.29
Boshniakovich 1969		3	0.54	2	0.05	3	0.25	5	0.67	24	0.33	3	0.47
Brailowsky 1960		65	0.32	76	0.00	67	0.03	65	0.03	71	0.04	76	0.03
Bunin 1987		63	0.33	77	0.00	68	0.03	64	0.03	76	0.03	86	0.03
Bunin 1987b		69	0.30	90	0.00	73	0.03	78	0.03	50	0.06	66	0.04
Chiu 1999		79	0.25	28	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	80	0.03	90	0.02
Cohen 1997		87	0.21	46	0.00	88	0.03	66	0.03	76	0.03	85	0.03
Cortot 1951		82	0.24	56	0.00	83	0.02	88	0.02	59	0.05	87	0.03
Csalog 1996		32	0.43	7	0.01	29	0.07	32	0.33	51	0.05	36	0.13
Czerny 1949		38	0.42	74	0.00	46	0.07	47	0.07	50	0.07	50	0.07
Czerny 1990		28	0.44	78	0.00	37	0.09	34	0.33	58	0.05	38	0.13
Duchoud 2007		71	0.29	87	0.00	84	0.02	79	0.02	51	0.06	82	0.03
Ezaki 2006		6	0.49	21	0.00	6	0.15	6	0.65	36	0.23	8	0.39
Falvay 1989		41	0.40	26	0.00	39	0.08	40	0.23	65	0.04	43	0.10
Farrell 1958		26	0.44	23	0.00	45	0.06	44	0.12	52	0.06	46	0.08
Ferenczy 1958		67	0.32	75	0.00	70	0.03	63	0.03	49	0.07	58	0.05
Fliere 1977		33	0.42	37	0.00	26	0.08	24	0.43	67	0.05	31	0.15
Fou 1978		13	0.48	25	0.00	7	0.14	7	0.57	31	0.26	9	0.38
Francois 1956		47	0.39	11	0.01	23	0.07	31	0.34	15	0.43	10	0.38
Friedman 1923		77	0.27	85	0.00	72	0.03	76	0.03	47	0.06	74	0.04
Friedman 1923b		78	0.27	32	0.00	71	0.03	77	0.03	63	0.05	72	0.04
Friedman 1930		85	0.23	79	0.00	87	0.03	71	0.03	65	0.04	81	0.03
Garcia 2007		86	0.22	18	0.00	81	0.03	74	0.03	58	0.05	71	0.04
Garcia 2007b		81	0.24	88	0.00	74	0.02	80	0.02	62	0.05	89	0.03
Gierzod 1998		5	0.53	5	0.03	4	0.13	4	0.69	52	0.06	25	0.20
Gornostaeva 1994		37	0.42	27	0.00	30	0.06	35	0.32	58	0.05	37	0.13
Groot 1988		58	0.36	57	0.00	56	0.05	56	0.05	62	0.05	60	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		16	0.47	15	0.01	18	0.08	13	0.51	58	0.05	30	0.16
Hatto 1993		8	0.49	29	0.00	13	0.13	19	0.49	40	0.20	13	0.31
Hatto 1997		12	0.48	35	0.00	9	0.15	11	0.54	39	0.21	11	0.34
Horowitz 1949		80	0.24	91	0.00	85	0.02	82	0.02	56	0.05	79	0.03
Indjic 1988		14	0.47	52	0.00	12	0.10	15	0.50	40	0.19	12	0.31
Kapell 1951		39	0.41	16	0.01	40	0.12	37	0.26	53	0.06	40	0.12
Kissin 1993		2	0.55	6	0.02	5	0.18	2	0.69	13	0.58	1	0.63
Kushner 1989		10	0.49	63	0.00	19	0.08	10	0.54	61	0.05	28	0.16
Luisada 1991		15	0.47	10	0.01	8	0.13	9	0.56	13	0.53	2	0.54
Lushtak 2004		43	0.40	58	0.00	34	0.09	33	0.33	76	0.04	42	0.11
Malcuzynski 1961		21	0.45	54	0.00	32	0.06	26	0.42	55	0.06	29	0.16
Magaloff 1978		36	0.42	33	0.00	47	0.06	51	0.06	62	0.04	54	0.05
Magin 1975		42	0.40	53	0.00	50	0.08	46	0.08	67	0.04	52	0.06
Michalowski 1933		88	0.21	89	0.00	82	0.02	81	0.02	27	0.29	48	0.08
Milkina 1970		4	0.53	3	0.05	2	0.22	3	0.69	40	0.24	5	0.41
Mohovich 1999		23	0.44	20	0.00	10	0.13	8	0.56	42	0.12	17	0.26
Moravec 1969		27	0.44	45	0.00	24	0.07	23	0.44	48	0.09	22	0.20
Morozova 2008		35	0.42	49	0.00	36	0.07	36	0.32	51	0.07	34	0.15
Neighaus 1950		53	0.37	64	0.00	57	0.05	57	0.05	53	0.05	61	0.05
Niedzielski 1931		55	0.37	30	0.00	48	0.06	49	0.06	32	0.21	41	0.11
Ohlsson 1999		9	0.49	13	0.01	16	0.09	25	0.43	40	0.21	14	0.30
Osinska 1989		31	0.43	61	0.00	43	0.06	41	0.16	62	0.05	44	0.09
Pachmann 1927		75	0.29	72	0.00	79	0.03	75	0.03	39	0.21	47	0.08
Paderewski 1930		84	0.23	68	0.00	75	0.02	83	0.02	31	0.20	53	0.06
Perlemuter 1992		72	0.29	80	0.00	80	0.02	84	0.02	61	0.04	75	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		70	0.30	65	0.00	63	0.03	70	0.03	56	0.05	64	0.04
Poblocka 1999		51	0.37	44	0.00	58	0.04	59	0.04	69	0.05	63	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		62	0.33	36	0.00	59	0.05	58	0.05	69	0.04	65	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		61	0.33	66	0.00	53	0.06	52	0.06	68	0.04	55	0.05
Rangell 2001		40	0.41	14	0.01	35	0.09	39	0.25	40	0.19	21	0.22
Richter 1976		46	0.39	67	0.00	52	0.06	54	0.06	68	0.03	67	0.04
Rosen 1989		44	0.39	24	0.00	42	0.06	42	0.16	72	0.04	49	0.08
Rosenthal 1930		68	0.31	62	0.00	77	0.03	67	0.03	66	0.04	83	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		66	0.32	59	0.00	69	0.04	61	0.04	61	0.04	68	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		76	0.28	69	0.00	76	0.02	85	0.02	59	0.05	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		49	0.38	70	0.00	38	0.07	38	0.26	27	0.30	16	0.28
Rosenthal 1931d		74	0.29	50	0.00	65	0.03	69	0.03	51	0.06	73	0.04
Rossi 2007		83	0.23	81	0.00	78	0.02	86	0.02	55	0.05	77	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		29	0.43	82	0.00	31	0.09	27	0.40	43	0.10	23	0.20
Rubinstein 1952		18	0.46	40	0.00	25	0.07	21	0.47	62	0.04	35	0.14
Rubinstein 1966		24	0.44	73	0.00	27	0.09	20	0.47	64	0.05	33	0.15
Schilhawsky 1960		59	0.35	41	0.00	62	0.04	62	0.04	72	0.03	80	0.03
Shebanova 2002		52	0.37	51	0.00	61	0.03	68	0.03	62	0.05	69	0.04
Smith 1975		64	0.32	43	0.00	66	0.03	73	0.03	73	0.04	78	0.03
Sokolov 2002		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Sztompka 1959		48	0.39	47	0.00	51	0.06	48	0.06	59	0.05	56	0.05
Tomsic 1995		25	0.44	12	0.01	22	0.09	18	0.50	24	0.34	6	0.41
Uninsky 1932		60	0.35	4	0.03	11	0.11	29	0.39	28	0.42	7	0.40
Uninsky 1971		50	0.38	42	0.00	49	0.06	50	0.06	66	0.05	57	0.05
Wasowski 1980		56	0.36	48	0.00	60	0.04	60	0.04	62	0.05	62	0.04
Zak 1937		20	0.45	22	0.00	28	0.07	22	0.44	42	0.14	18	0.25
Zak 1951		22	0.45	60	0.00	33	0.07	30	0.36	49	0.06	32	0.15
Average		1	0.62	1	0.63	1	0.62	1	0.85	54	0.07	19	0.24
Random 1		90	0.00	71	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	31	0.23	59	0.05
Random 2		89	0.07	83	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	15	0.37	45	0.09
Random 3		91	-0.13	84	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	56	0.04	91	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).