Sunday saw the much-anticipated return of Cuppers Chess, in the form of an eight-team, four-board, 15 minute tournament held at Keble. The teams were divided into two groups of four for a round-robin group stage, which would be followed by semi-finals and a final.
In group A, a three-way battle between the strong teams from Exeter, Univ and Merton for the two qualifying berths ensued. Merton’s lower-board strength resulted in draws with both Exeter and Univ, but the decisive result proved to be Univ’s 3 – 1 victory over Exeter, sending them through top of the group.
Group B was dominated by pre-tournament favourites Keble, who scored 11 out of 12 to set up a semi-final with Merton. Second place went to Blackfriars, who defeated both St. Catz B and Merton Magic, who ran away with prize for worst name in the competition.
In the semi-finals, the surprise package, Blackfriars, came extremely close to toppling Univ, losing only on the tie-break rule. In the other semi final, Merton knew they would have to perform exceptionally to have any chance against the all-conquering Keble. It looked as if a shock might be on the cards when Merton won board 4, but Keble’s top three players showed their class to ensure they would face Univ in the final.
First, however, third place had to be decided. Blackfriars drew first blood when board 1 Patrick Mitchell checkmated Merton’s George Raptis with a nice combination. But with the other three games going Merton’s way, Ben Waugh soon levelled the score with a fine win, while Eoin Devane won on board 2. The match would thus come down to board 3, where Alex Antao had a winning position but was desperately low on time. This told, and David Baird capitalised on a mistake by Antao to seal the victory for Blackfriars on the tie-break rule.
Having dropped only two points in the entire tournament thus far, Keble were favourites to win the final against Univ. Indeed Ting Xu soon gave them the advantage with a win on board 4.
However, despite taking a 2-0 lead, things were far from over. Ben Kirollos was looking dominant on 3 and the mercurial Mike Healey looked to have the stronger position against Tom Eckersley-Waites on 1. If both boards went against Keble, Univ would win on tiebreak. Once again, time proved significant; Kirollos’ flag fell, giving Keble the victory. There was still time, however, for a grandstand finish between Healey and Eckersley-Waites with both players having fewer than 2 seconds remaining when Healey won. Thus, Keble won the first Chess Cuppers of this Century. I dare say, given the success of the event, that it will not be the last.
In defence of defiance
When students walked out of the Clarendon building four weeks ago, there was a sense of achievement. Student activists and university authorities had reached an understanding with a spirit of goodwill that was praised by this paper at the time. The University has since been far from generous in fulfilling their promises. The statements of the Vice-Chancellor and Proctors were dismissive at best, and we now hear that students are being hunted down to pay unspecified fees. These students have reason to feel betrayed.
What good will it do to fine the students involved? At least £1,000 worth of good for the Proctors’ office, but that really shouldn’t be the point. This isn’t a proportional response to the ‘disruption and inconvenience’ that Hood alleges. The occupation lasted for just one day, and was confined to a single, small office building. Nor can the fine be seen as a reasonable deterrent. Occupations such as this occur so rarely that by the time students are preparing to barricade themselves in a university building again, none of them may remember the fines meted out on the previous occasion. The disproportionate nature of the University’s witch-hunt can be seen by the fact that only one other university, out of the thirty that have been occupied, have chosen to punish students in this way. This will serve only to perpetuate the perception of Oxford as an archaic, conservative institution out of touch with the rest of the British academy.
The fragmented nature of the University leads to many differences in operation, many detrimental. On this occasion, however, Oxford’s institutions have real potential to serve the interests of students. Porters, deans and tutors at individual colleges are presented with a prime opportunity to stand up to the centralising powers they frequently complain of for much weaker reasons. Not co-operating with the proctors in identifying their students for punishment would certainly be in the interests of students, and is just the kind of passive resistance by prevarication which is likely to succeed with minimal trouble.
All we can do is to offer our approval to Wadham, our hope that it may continue in its resistance, and that other colleges will act similarly.