STLPR0%

Webster University ends top-ranked chess program, leaders question reasons 67%

By Katie Grawitch0%

5/5/2026, 10:00:00 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 67% (5,541 of 16,813 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.00% 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. 
Confirmation Bias
15.9%
Anchoring Bias
14.1%
Availability Heuristic
12%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
4.3%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
1.8%
Loss Aversion
6.3%
Status Quo Bias
5.3%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
8.8%
Pessimism Bias
4.3%
Negativity Bias
12.2%
Self-Serving Bias
2.2%
Fundamental Attribution Error
5.9%
Actor-Observer Bias
2.9%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
15.5%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
5.5%
Primacy Effect
1.6%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
9.8%
False Dilemma
5.3%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
3.1%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
8.4%
Begging the Question
12.2%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
6.3%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
2.9%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
2.2%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
2.9%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
5.7%
Biased Writer Voice
1.8%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
9%

491 words analyzed.

Analysis

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