Andrew Tate vs Daniel Knight: Who Wins a Chess Match?

Both Andrew Tate and Daniel Knight are best known for the sport of kickboxing. Tate was a former world champion and Knight is the owner of the infamous brand Sidekick Boxing. Their names are recognised together as Sidekick was Tates sponsor for many years. But rather than a kickboxing match, who would win in a game of Chess?

When comparing Andrew Tate and Daniel Knight in a hypothetical chess match, the first thing to assess is their Elo rating, experience, and style of play. In this case, we’re looking at Andrew Tate, a controversial internet personality with a rumored chess background, and Daniel Knight, a dedicated online blitz player with thousands of games under his belt.

Background: The Contenders

Andrew Tate

Claimed Elo Rating: Between 1600-1800
Style of Play: Unknown, but he claims his father, Emory Tate, a celebrated international master (IM), taught him from a young age.
Reputation: Tate has publicly spoken about being very strong at chess due to his father’s influence, suggesting that while he doesn’t compete seriously, he retains advanced tactical understanding.

Despite not having a verified Chess.com profile or FIDE rating, the 1600-1800 estimate puts him at a strong club level, bordering on expert territory. This range means Tate likely understands deeper concepts like pawn structure, tactical motifs, and positional imbalances.

Daniel Knight

Chess.com Username: Danielknight007
Elo Rating: Around 1200 on Chess.com blitz
Games Played: 14,751 blitz games (3-minute format)
Style: Speed and experience-focused; likely accustomed to fast, instinctive play rather than deep calculation

Knight’s experience in blitz chess (3-minute games) is not trivial—14,000+ games indicate massive repetition and familiarity with common positions. However, an Elo rating of 1200 suggests limited understanding of deeper strategies, more tactical oversights, and possibly frequent time trouble.

SHOP: The Kickboxer Collection

Who Wins the Chess Match?

In Classical or Rapid Time Controls

Advantage: Andrew Tate. If the time control is generous—say, 15 minutes or more—Tate’s superior understanding of strategy and tactics would almost certainly outclass Knight. At 1600+, Tate would know how to convert advantages and punish mistakes, even if he’s rusty.

In Blitz (3-Minute) Format

Slight Edge: Andrew Tate. Here, it gets more interesting. Knight’s sheer blitz experience and familiarity with the format could give him practical chances. Still, the rating gap of 400-600 Elo points is steep. Assuming Tate is even at the low end of the 1600 estimate, he would still win a clear majority of games over time—likely 70-80%.

However, Knight could absolutely pull off a few surprise wins, especially if Tate is overconfident or rusty.

Conclusion

Andrew Tate wins the chess match, assuming his Elo is genuinely in the 1600–1800 range. His tactical foundation, likely inherited from IM Emory Tate, gives him a decisive edge over Daniel Knight, despite Knight’s immense blitz experience.

That said, Knight’s dedication—logging nearly 15,000 games—is impressive. With consistent study and coaching, a 1200-rated blitz player could rise significantly. But for now, in a head-to-head match? Tate takes the crown.