STLPR0%

Webster University ends top-ranked chess program, leaders question reasons 68%

By Katie Grawitch0%

5/5/2026, 3:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Anchoring Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 15.9% saturation with 78 hits. Analysis detected 923 faulty-reasoning hits from 491 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 61.4% and a BS Rank of 68% (7,049 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.80% of the article peer group.

Webster University has ended its top-ranked chess program. 
The Susan Polgar Institute for Chess Excellence has won two world championships, three gold medals at the international Chess Olympiad and more than 90 national titles since it came to Webster University in 2012, according to a statement from Director Liem Le on Facebook. 
“I am incredibly proud of what we accomplished together,” Le said. 
“More than 60 alumni  including many grandmasters from around the world  have graduated from Webster, and I am confident they will continue to thrive both on and off the chessboard." 
University spokesperson Patrick Giblin said the program was terminated due to a lack of donor funding and visa restrictions for international students in a statement. 
“While we are proud of the team for all that they achieved, the University must focus on its primary mission of supporting educational programming,” Giblin said. 
The university has operated at a loss for over a decade but saw net positive cash flow last fiscal year due to increased enrollment and refinancing of some bonds and loans. 
Giblin said Webster acquired the program from Texas Tech in 2012 but was unable to raise any endowment money in the following years to support it. 
He said the chess program cost the university over a million dollars per year, including salaries and bonuses for a director and assistant director, travel costs, a “large dedicated space” on campus and full scholarships and other financial support for students. 
Some leaders with the Susan Polgar Institute question those numbers. 
Le told STLPR the program’s annual operating budget was “significantly below $1 million” and said he has not had an assistant director or assistant coach during his tenure. 
The institute’s most recent assistant coach left in 2021. 
According to the university’s tax records, the assistant was paid more than $170,000  including salary, bonuses and benefits. 
Le also said that students received either full or partial scholarship support and that the club faced no visa-related issues during his tenure. 
“I was aware of challenges facing the program over time, so the possibility of changes was not entirely unexpected,” Le said. 
“That said, the timing and impact were still difficult, particularly for the students.” 
Founder and Director Emeritus Susan Polgar also questioned the $1 million figure, scholarship claims and issues with visas in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter. 
“Most concerning is this: If the university was truly struggling to finance the SPICE chess program, why did no one in the current administration  especially President Dr. 
Tim Keane  ever inform me of any problems or reach out for help?” 
Polgar said. 
Polgar said many young chess players choose to go to Webster because of its reputation. 
In response to a request for comment, Giblin said the university cannot make those scholarship awards public because they are protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.9%Katie Grawitch: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias15.9%This article: 14.1%Katie Grawitch: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias14.1%This article: 12.0%Katie Grawitch: 2.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic12.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 4.3%Katie Grawitch: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Katie Grawitch: 8.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect1.8%This article: 6.3%Katie Grawitch: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion6.3%This article: 5.3%Katie Grawitch: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.8%Katie Grawitch: 4.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias8.8%This article: 4.3%Katie Grawitch: 2.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias4.3%This article: 12.2%Katie Grawitch: 8.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias12.2%This article: 2.2%Katie Grawitch: 2.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias2.2%This article: 5.9%Katie Grawitch: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error5.9%This article: 2.9%Katie Grawitch: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 3.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 15.5%Katie Grawitch: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect15.5%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.5%Katie Grawitch: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias5.5%This article: 1.6%Katie Grawitch: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect1.6%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.8%Katie Grawitch: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority9.8%This article: 5.3%Katie Grawitch: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma5.3%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.1%Katie Grawitch: 3.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization3.1%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.4%Katie Grawitch: 6.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion8.4%This article: 12.2%Katie Grawitch: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question12.2%This article: 6.3%Katie Grawitch: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.3%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.9%Katie Grawitch: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof2.9%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.2%Katie Grawitch: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal2.2%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 2.9%Katie Grawitch: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity2.9%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 5.7%Katie Grawitch: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection5.7%This article: 1.8%Katie Grawitch: 2.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice1.8%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.0%

491 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers82%attributed speech86writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageLiem Le • 44 words • 100.0% coverageLiem Le • 11 words • 0.0% coverageLiem Le • 32 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Giblin • 25 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Giblin • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Giblin • 26 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Giblin • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageLiem Le • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageLiem Le • 23 words • 0.0% coverageLiem Le • 21 words • 0.0% coverageLiem Le • 13 words • 0.0% coverageSusan Polgar • 27 words • 0.0% coverageSusan Polgar • 28 words • 100.0% coverageSusan Polgar • 14 words • 0.0% coverageSusan Polgar • 2 words • 0.0% coverageSusan Polgar • 15 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Giblin • 29 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Susan Polgar

98%flagged-word coverage
86 attributed words21% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Quote-first Misdirection+32.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Susan Polgar: 32.6%32.6%Biased Writer Voice-10.5 ptsWriter: 10.5%Susan Polgar: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.