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	0.59	11	0.01	12	0.09	9	0.51	39	0.20	13	0.32
Anderszewski 2003		20	0.55	58	0.00	14	0.09	14	0.43	31	0.36	11	0.39
Ashkenazy 1981		10	0.59	7	0.02	16	0.09	12	0.47	20	0.39	5	0.43
Bacha 2000		47	0.48	21	0.00	63	0.04	67	0.04	39	0.13	58	0.07
Badura 1965		45	0.49	44	0.00	28	0.05	34	0.23	32	0.33	18	0.28
Barbosa 1983		70	0.43	42	0.00	59	0.04	59	0.04	60	0.05	75	0.04
Biret 1990		9	0.60	23	0.00	18	0.08	16	0.42	41	0.14	23	0.24
Blet 2003		71	0.43	39	0.00	66	0.04	66	0.04	40	0.15	56	0.08
Block 1995		84	0.38	60	0.00	71	0.03	72	0.03	56	0.05	78	0.04
Blumental 1952		28	0.52	27	0.00	36	0.06	38	0.16	64	0.04	57	0.08
Boshniakovich 1969		5	0.62	4	0.02	4	0.33	5	0.59	19	0.52	2	0.55
Brailowsky 1960		81	0.40	84	0.00	86	0.04	64	0.04	75	0.04	71	0.04
Bunin 1987		67	0.43	72	0.00	38	0.05	43	0.10	23	0.40	27	0.20
Bunin 1987b		75	0.42	82	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	28	0.38	28	0.17
Chiu 1999		77	0.41	85	0.00	74	0.03	69	0.03	74	0.03	85	0.03
Cohen 1997		87	0.34	61	0.00	87	0.03	81	0.03	70	0.03	89	0.03
Cortot 1951		82	0.38	62	0.00	68	0.03	77	0.03	54	0.05	80	0.04
Csalog 1996		60	0.45	22	0.00	48	0.05	49	0.05	50	0.05	66	0.05
Czerny 1949		33	0.51	74	0.00	35	0.06	33	0.23	50	0.06	41	0.12
Czerny 1990		36	0.51	48	0.00	50	0.06	47	0.06	66	0.04	70	0.05
Duchoud 2007		23	0.54	37	0.00	33	0.07	35	0.21	7	0.49	14	0.32
Ezaki 2006		21	0.55	6	0.02	11	0.09	11	0.47	27	0.38	6	0.42
Falvay 1989		64	0.44	10	0.01	56	0.05	53	0.05	46	0.09	59	0.07
Farrell 1958		26	0.53	29	0.00	39	0.05	44	0.09	65	0.05	60	0.07
Ferenczy 1958		85	0.37	69	0.00	76	0.03	83	0.03	54	0.04	88	0.03
Fliere 1977		19	0.55	45	0.00	15	0.12	17	0.42	64	0.04	32	0.13
Fou 1978		17	0.56	41	0.00	23	0.10	22	0.33	55	0.05	33	0.13
Francois 1956		52	0.47	16	0.00	62	0.05	50	0.05	36	0.27	42	0.12
Friedman 1923		74	0.42	75	0.00	75	0.04	60	0.04	61	0.05	82	0.04
Friedman 1923b		76	0.42	26	0.00	73	0.03	76	0.03	55	0.06	79	0.04
Friedman 1930		83	0.38	89	0.00	85	0.03	79	0.03	65	0.05	76	0.04
Garcia 2007		65	0.43	35	0.00	72	0.03	78	0.03	52	0.05	77	0.04
Garcia 2007b		62	0.44	90	0.00	65	0.03	75	0.03	70	0.04	91	0.03
Gierzod 1998		3	0.65	3	0.07	3	0.23	2	0.66	28	0.42	4	0.53
Gornostaeva 1994		25	0.53	5	0.02	21	0.08	24	0.32	22	0.37	12	0.34
Groot 1988		59	0.45	67	0.00	70	0.03	74	0.03	70	0.04	90	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		18	0.55	79	0.00	6	0.17	10	0.50	32	0.33	9	0.41
Hatto 1993		29	0.52	63	0.00	31	0.09	28	0.28	49	0.06	37	0.13
Hatto 1997		32	0.52	49	0.00	29	0.05	26	0.29	60	0.05	40	0.12
Horowitz 1949		79	0.40	91	0.00	77	0.03	82	0.03	46	0.08	65	0.05
Indjic 1988		31	0.52	55	0.00	30	0.06	27	0.28	53	0.05	39	0.12
Kapell 1951		24	0.53	50	0.00	25	0.06	23	0.33	64	0.04	43	0.11
Kissin 1993		4	0.62	8	0.02	5	0.16	4	0.60	26	0.48	3	0.54
Kushner 1989		13	0.59	19	0.00	22	0.08	20	0.40	52	0.06	31	0.15
Luisada 1991		22	0.55	25	0.00	20	0.10	19	0.41	38	0.17	20	0.26
Lushtak 2004		44	0.49	65	0.00	46	0.05	57	0.05	51	0.06	68	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		38	0.50	20	0.00	43	0.06	40	0.12	35	0.15	34	0.13
Magaloff 1978		37	0.51	32	0.00	54	0.04	62	0.04	61	0.04	73	0.04
Magin 1975		16	0.56	24	0.00	10	0.10	13	0.44	39	0.22	15	0.31
Michalowski 1933		58	0.45	80	0.00	41	0.05	41	0.12	21	0.38	26	0.21
Milkina 1970		6	0.61	18	0.00	9	0.14	6	0.57	38	0.29	8	0.41
Mohovich 1999		30	0.52	83	0.00	27	0.05	30	0.26	61	0.05	46	0.11
Moravec 1969		78	0.40	43	0.00	82	0.02	87	0.02	52	0.05	83	0.03
Morozova 2008		35	0.51	51	0.00	32	0.06	31	0.24	54	0.05	44	0.11
Neighaus 1950		15	0.56	54	0.00	24	0.08	25	0.31	28	0.30	16	0.30
Niedzielski 1931		72	0.42	34	0.00	53	0.05	55	0.05	49	0.05	64	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		2	0.67	2	0.12	2	0.37	3	0.65	6	0.62	1	0.63
Osinska 1989		41	0.49	66	0.00	52	0.05	56	0.05	66	0.05	63	0.05
Pachmann 1927		86	0.37	46	0.00	83	0.02	86	0.02	16	0.42	49	0.09
Paderewski 1930		80	0.40	57	0.00	84	0.03	71	0.03	83	0.03	87	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		53	0.47	70	0.00	47	0.05	52	0.05	44	0.12	53	0.08
Pierdomenico 2008		73	0.42	52	0.00	78	0.03	84	0.03	41	0.21	55	0.08
Poblocka 1999		40	0.50	47	0.00	37	0.05	37	0.18	51	0.05	47	0.09
Rabcewiczowa 1932		56	0.46	31	0.00	58	0.05	54	0.05	61	0.04	74	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		27	0.53	38	0.00	17	0.09	21	0.36	41	0.16	22	0.24
Rangell 2001		39	0.50	33	0.00	51	0.05	48	0.05	30	0.34	36	0.13
Richter 1976		55	0.46	28	0.00	44	0.04	42	0.11	33	0.41	25	0.21
Rosen 1989		34	0.51	40	0.00	40	0.05	39	0.15	55	0.05	51	0.09
Rosenthal 1930		49	0.48	76	0.00	60	0.04	63	0.04	23	0.45	35	0.13
Rosenthal 1931		61	0.44	86	0.00	79	0.03	85	0.03	32	0.26	50	0.09
Rosenthal 1931b		66	0.43	87	0.00	80	0.02	88	0.02	28	0.28	61	0.07
Rosenthal 1931c		46	0.49	81	0.00	57	0.06	46	0.06	19	0.47	29	0.17
Rosenthal 1931d		69	0.43	71	0.00	81	0.03	73	0.03	33	0.30	52	0.09
Rossi 2007		88	0.33	36	0.00	88	0.04	65	0.04	74	0.04	72	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		51	0.48	56	0.00	64	0.03	68	0.03	69	0.04	86	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		43	0.49	15	0.00	55	0.04	61	0.04	56	0.05	81	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		42	0.49	59	0.00	61	0.04	58	0.04	59	0.06	67	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		50	0.48	12	0.01	42	0.06	36	0.20	41	0.13	30	0.16
Shebanova 2002		12	0.59	64	0.00	13	0.08	15	0.43	42	0.15	21	0.25
Smith 1975		48	0.48	73	0.00	49	0.05	51	0.05	45	0.13	54	0.08
Sokolov 2002		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Sztompka 1959		14	0.58	13	0.01	19	0.10	18	0.42	41	0.19	17	0.28
Tomsic 1995		68	0.43	17	0.00	69	0.03	80	0.03	36	0.28	48	0.09
Uninsky 1932		54	0.46	14	0.01	26	0.06	32	0.24	41	0.22	24	0.23
Uninsky 1971		63	0.44	30	0.00	34	0.08	29	0.27	67	0.05	38	0.12
Wasowski 1980		57	0.46	77	0.00	67	0.03	70	0.03	75	0.04	84	0.03
Zak 1937		8	0.60	9	0.01	7	0.16	7	0.53	29	0.34	7	0.42
Zak 1951		7	0.60	53	0.00	8	0.20	8	0.53	31	0.30	10	0.40
Average		1	0.70	1	0.55	1	0.54	1	0.83	46	0.09	19	0.27
Random 1		90	-0.06	88	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	14	0.41	62	0.06
Random 2		89	0.06	68	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	2	0.56	45	0.11
Random 3		91	-0.07	78	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	21	0.26	69	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).