Coventry first 3 rounds:
1 Oscar P --------------
195 [30] was 195B (0)
2 Donald J M ----------
191 [30] was 192A (-1)
3 Mark E P -------------
189 [30] was 192 [30] (-3)
4 Anish G --------------
188 [2] was ungraded [0] (+188)
5 Iain A G -------------
184 [30] was 190C (-6)
6 Mircea-Marius M --
183 [19] was 183D (0)
7 Luke Newell -------------
181 [4] was ungraded [0] (+181)
8 Joshua P -------------
179 [30] was 177 [30] (+2)
9 Lionel R -------------
178 [30] was 177 [30] (+1)
10 Georgi P -------------
178 [2] was ungraded [0] (+178)
11 Vihaan N -------------
178 [2] was ungraded [0] (+178)
12 Luke Nelson -------------
177 [30] was 175C (+2)
13 John M ----------------
175 [30] was 172B (+3)
14 Neil J O -------------
172 [17] was 167D (+5)
15 Colin J G -----------
172 [30] was 169 [30] (+3)
16 Anthony J G --------
172 [30] was 169 [30] (+3)
17 Anuman G -------------
169 [2] was ungraded [0] (+169)
18 Jude S ----------------
166 [30] was 164A (+2)
19 Simeon B -------------
166 [30] was 170 [30] (-4)
20 Wilfred A -----------
166 [4] was ungraded [0] (+166)
21 Tom D -----------------
165 [30] was 167C (-2)
22 Mike J D -------------
163 [30] was 157 [30] (+6)
23 Joe V -----------------
161 [30] was 150A (+11)
24 Jonathan F ----------
161 [30] was 161 [30] (0)
25 Sam C -----------------
160 [30] was 157 [30] (+3)
26 Andy W ----------------
160 [30] was 163 [30] (-3)
27 Bernard J C --------
159 [30] was 161 [30] (-2)
28 Manvith S -----------
159 [30] was 161A (-2)
29 Anthony J -----------
159 [4] was ungraded [0] (+159)
30 Liam R ----------------
157 [6] was ungraded [0] (+157)
31 Marek J S -----------
156 [30] was 159B (-3)
32 Andrew N L ----------
155 [17] was 154D (+1)
33 Ervins R -------------
152 [6] was ungraded [0] (+152)
34 Ben G -----------------
149 [30] was 155 [30] (-6)
35 David J S -----------
148 [30] was 147C (1)
36 Saravanna Bava M -
146 [30] was 151 [30] (-5)
37 Arjun P --------------
145 [30] was 147 [30] (-2)
38 Simon T --------------
142 [30] was 139 [30] (+3)
39 Nathan B -------------
142 [2] was ungraded [0] (+142)
40 Ed H G ----------------
141 [30] was 143 [30] (-2)
41 Gordon SG C --------
140 [30] was 145B (-5)
42 James L --------------
140 [30] was 143C (-3)
43 Robert M -------------
138 [30] was 140B (-2)
44 Bernard A R --------
136 [11] was 138E (-2)
45 Warrick S -----------
136 [19] was 133D (+3)
46 Kate M D -------------
135 [30] was 133 [30] (+2)
47 Daniel J -------------
135 [7] was 111F (+24)
48 Vincenz B -----------
130 [23] was 125 [19] (+5)
49 Marek Z --------------
128 [30] was 131C (-3)
50 William M -----------
127 [17] was 128D (-1)
51 Peter M S -----------
126 [19] was 128D (-2)
52 Tom T -----------------
124 [6] was ungraded [0] (+124)
53 Dillon P -------------
124 [4] was ungraded [0] (+124)
54 Khosrov H -----------
124 [2] was ungraded [0] (+124)
55 Chun C ----------------
123 [27] was 116 [21] (+7)
56 Robert B -------------
123 [30] was 119C (+4)
57 John J R -------------
122 [30] was 119 [30] (+3)
58 Arnold P -------------
122 [30] was 124C (-2)
59 David M --------------
119 [2] was ungraded [0] (+119)
60 Naqi N ----------------
119 [2] was ungraded [0] (+119)
61 Mike J J -------------
119 [30] was 117 [30] (+2)
62 Frank C J -----------
118 [30] was 124B (-6)
63 David F --------------
117 [30] was 116C (1)
64 David R --------------
116 [30] was 113 [30] (+3)
65 Peter S --------------
116 [30] was 119C (-3)
66 Kim T G --------------
115 [30] was 117B (-2)
67 Billy F --------------
113 [27] was 113 [23] (0)
68 Maclain O -----------
111 [11] was 109 [9] (+2)
69 Paul D ----------------
111 [30] was 109C (+2)
70 Thomas G -------------
110 [21] was 108 [17] (+2)
71 Roger B --------------
110 [30] was 106B (+4)
72 Malcolm S H --------
109 [30] was 109B (0)
73 Peter S --------------
107 [30] was 110 [30] (-3)
74 Solomon H -----------
107 [17] was 106D (1)
75 Simon W --------------
105 [30] was 103B (+2)
76 Stephen B -----------
104 [25] was 104 [21] (0)
77 Thomas P -------------
101 [4] was ungraded [0] (+101)
78 Samson M -------------
101 [13] was 94E (+7)
79 Adrian G -------------
101 [30] was 97C (+4)
80 Daniel G -------------
100 [11] was 98E (+2)
81 John B H -------------
98 [30] was 101 [30] (-3)
82 Amar B ----------------
97 [2] was ungraded [0] (+97)
83 Richard B -----------
96 [30] was 101B (-5)
84 Margarita N --------
95 [30] was 96A (-1)
85 Cass S ----------------
92 [2] was ungraded [0] (+92)
86 Barry K --------------
91 [30] was 99B (-8)
87 Jacob P --------------
91 [2] was ungraded [0] (+91)
88 Vassily M S --------
85 [21] was 78D (+7)
89 Igor S ----------------
83 [2] was ungraded [0] (+83)
90 Rhys D ----------------
83 [2] was ungraded [0] (+83)
91 Jiri S ----------------
82 [23] was 83 [19] (-1)
92 Trevor R -------------
82 [12] was 73 [8] (+9)
93 Daniel M -------------
81 [9] was 59F (+22)
94 Hok C -----------------
81 [21] was 86 [19] (-5)
95 Richard S -----------
74 [30] was 76B (-2)
96 Sarim P --------------
69 [2] was ungraded [0] (+69)
97 Henry W --------------
64 [13] was 55 [11] (+9)
98 Dwight R -------------
63 [4] was ungraded [0] (+63)
99 Alex W ----------------
62 [4] was ungraded [0] (+62)
100 Richard F -----------
59 [2] was ungraded [0] (+59)
101 Geoffry G B --------
59 [19] was 58D (1)
102 Pavels S -------------
56 [14] was 61 [8] (-5)
103 Ezekiel Houyan H -
54 [30] was 56A (-2)
104 Frank C --------------
51 [7] was 47F (+4)
105 Batoor G -------------
48 [2] was ungraded [0] (+48)
106 Gary C ----------------
9 [2] was ungraded [0] (+9)
107 Oskar G --------------
3 [2] was ungraded [0] (+3)
I came across a quirk of the Clarke system:
Estimating a starting Grade for an ungraded player (or a junior)
A Rapid grade, where available, will be used in default of a Standard grade; and vice versa. If the player has no grade at all, a starting grade is calculated as follows, using all their games in the latest three years (for adults) or one year (for juniors), inclusive of the current year.
Stage 1 is to calculate a 'grade' for each ungraded player on all their games against graded opponents in the relevant period. The 40-point rule is not used. If all their opponents are graded, it stops there and Stage 2 is omitted. The result will be used as their starting grade.
So if you had a player who lost to five 100s, their starting grade without the 40-point rule would be 50. But then when the grading algorithm proper was run, the 40-point rule would kick in, and the grades of their 5 opponents would be pulled down to 90, which would pull their own final grade down to 40. They would get their opponents' grades minus 60, instead of minus 50.
I've made the assumption that that wasn't intended, and that Stage 1 should read "The result will be used as their final grade".