Onitama belongs to specific category of 2-player abstracts I call “Worse Chess“. These are perfect information, direct conflict games played on a square grid where the goal is to capture a particular playing piece of your opponent’s. The Duke is another popular example, and there are many lesser known titles in the genre as well. I can state without embellishment that I genuinely don’t understand the appeal of these games. Just play Chess. Chess has history, culture, immense depth, and a vast community of players. “Worse Chess” is a watered down Chess-like experience without any of those things. Onitama, despite its acclaim, is no exception.
Onitama is played on a 5×5 grid. Each player starts with 4 “Student Pawns” and 1 “Master Pawn,” which they line up on their side of the grid with the Master in the center. They are both dealt two random face-up “Move” cards, and a fifth Move card is placed to the side of the board. The rest of the cards will not be used and are returned to the box, potentially to be involved in future games. Onitama differs from Chess in that the player pieces do not have dedicated move sets. Instead, players take turns by selecting 1 of their 2 Move cards and applying its movement rules to any piece of their choosing. After doing so, they exchange their selected card with the one to the side of the board. In effect, this means that the available moves will cycle between players as the game is played, because every card you use will be taken by your opponent at the end of their next turn. Interesting! Another differentiating aspect in Onitama is that there are two ways to win the game: 1) by capturing your opponent’s “Master Pawn” or 2) by moving one of your pieces onto its starting space.
That’s how you play Onitama, but how do you play Onitama? Well, the game is a movement forecasting puzzle, nothing more, so the winner is whoever can count the most turns ahead. There is no strategy, and not much in the way of tactics. You know what 2 moves your opponent has and where all their pieces are (perfect information, remember?), so all you need to do is make moves that stop your opponent from capturing your pieces or getting past your defenses. If your brain can crunch more outward permutations than your opponent, you will win. To an extent this is also true of Chess, sure, but its possibility space, depth of strategy, and narrative are vastly more nuanced and engaging than Onitama‘s. Onitama‘s tiny board and paucity of options are laughable in comparison. Nothing in Onitama is even 10% as exciting as putting your opponent in check in a tight game of Chess.
To further touch on Onitama‘s lack of strategy, consider this: its entire decision space is determined randomly at the beginning of the game. It is practically impossible to explore new techniques, approaches, or maneuvers in a game designed this way. I suppose you could map out every possible configuration of Move cards and strategize around each set individually, but come on. How is that fun or rewarding or meaningful? The only interesting idea Onitama presents is the move swapping mechanism, which is why the game’s fans latch onto that exact feature and tout it as an exemplar of abstract design excellence. But a single interesting mechanic is not enough when the game it’s a part of is so boring and uncreative. Its implementation isn’t even particularly smooth. A similar idea could have made for a pleasurable twist in a card drafting or deck-building game, but in a 2-player abstract it feels out of place. The constant card swapping really interferes with the aesthetic and mechanical austerity that abstract games tend to thrive on. If it ain’t going on, off, or across the board, it shouldn’t be in the game. I want to be lost in a pure tactical struggle with my adversary’s mind and the board state manifestations therefrom, not fiddle with a distracting auxiliary system every time I make a move. Yes, even if it is just swapping a card.
To conclude, I’d like to clarify that the problem with Onitama and every other form of “Worse Chess” is not their mechanical simplicity. It’s their strategic and tactical simplicity when compared to the established greats. Go is as mechanically simple as it gets, and it’s one of the best games ever created. We’ve been playing it for 4 thousand years, and I guarantee that it will continue being studied and appreciated until the end of humanity as we know it. In general, there’s a reason why the historical classics are pretty much all 2-player abstracts: Go, Chess, Backgammon, Checkers, Mancala, Cribbage, etc. They are the perfect format for an intimate, uncluttered battle of wits and domination between friends or foes. Unfortunately, Onitama supplies neither the weaponry nor the terrain to make that battle meaningful.
Onitama gets a rating of TWO out of FIVE, indicating it is NOT RECOMMENDED.