Single Comment

In Absolutely Colorboundmost Chess, there must be as little interaction as
possible between pieces on squares of different colors.

As a consequence, there can be no Castling. A further consequence is that
you should really play it on two boards, lest the visual clutter become a
sort of interaction between the two colors.

The big surpsise is that it must be a doublemove game, one move on each
color. If you have only one move, and must decide between colors, that is a
form of interaction! (Yes, that interaction would make a better game; but
the absolute extreme colorboundmost chess has to be doublemove.)

Your Q is on the same color as the enemy K. This means that you start with
enough material superiority to mate the opponent -- but of course the
reverse is also true! I see this as a race game (pushing the boundaries of
race games!), and therefore immediately thought of Parton's 'Fair race
rule' from Racing Kings: if W gives mate, Black can draw by giving mate in
reply. (The question of who wins first is an interaction between the
colors, but it is unavoidable in a chess variant.)

However, since it's a doublemove game, an even better alternative is to
make it 'balanced'. W only gets to make one move first turn. 

To avoid interaction, the rules must specify on which color W must move on
the first turn!

Of course all the pieces and Pawns and Kings must be colorbound. (Also, a
game with weak interaction played as a singlemove game on a single board
would be more interesting; but the first step is to define the most
extremely absolute colorboundmost game possible!)

Am I correct in thinking that all these consequences follow inevitably from
the premise? Have I missed any? Is it interesting that this much of the
game can be specified without even thinking about how individual pieces
move?