I’ll take the archery. Chess is fun, but preternaturally gifted shooting could really come in handy.
Something occurs to me. A lot of persons on this board, including a few who’ve responded in this thread, have quite rigid requirements for their personal honor, refusing to lie or break their words no matter what. It surprises me, then, that as many of y’all are willing to a level in chess badassery. I can’t see how that wouldn’t be cheating.
Thoughts?
Cheating would be having someone (or something) feed you the moves. With your amulet, we still do the thinking and still determine the moves, we’re just better at it. Personally, I think my ultimate goal would be to improve my native abilities through what I learn by being able to participate on an even level in some very high level games.
Of course, since the archers plan to eliminate us all from a distance so that they are the best chess players (talk about cheating!) then it’s all moot anyway isn’t it. 
I’ve always wanted to learn how to play chess but, despite the option of “both” out there, archery is way cooler. I took archery in Bible Camp as a teen and, like any other sport, sucked huge giant donkey balls at it. But, unlike most sports, I enjoyed sucking huge giant donkey balls at it*. Would love to know how to be a good archer. And, the added advantage is that, even though I’ve done both archery and chess, I know more about archery, I only lack the upper body strength to be any good, chess I lack a lot more understanding, so it’d be easier on the superpower.
- now that I’m actually running for political office (really!), I can just see my political opponents finding this thread and digging it up: “dhkendall says he “enjoys sucking huge giant donkey balls”. Do you want someone like this in charge of the education of our children?”
I’m willing to entertain arguments, but off the top of my head…
Is it cheating when some people are better at things because of native talent? Is it cheating when some people are better at things because their environment has, through no particular virtue of their own, given them better opportunities to learn and develop those skills? No, because they are, in fact, better, within the terms of the test itself.
It would be like saying soldiers are cheating when they have better weapons than the enemy, or debaters are cheating by being better-read on the subject. The challenge is reduced, but challenge level is always relative to the skills brought to bear.
To put it another way, the honest, legitimate winner of a chess match is not the most-improved or hardest-working player. It’s the guy who wins on the board.
I didn’t mention archery because,as pointed upthread, it has multiple applications that don’t involve competition.
Do you actually have these amulets, or are your making this all up? If they actually exist and one used them, then there could be a discussion of the potential of cheating if one used them. And suppose they are really placebos? Are placebos cheating? If Lance Armstrong thought he was using prohibited substances for his Tours d’ Frances, but was really taking sugar pills, was he cheating, or just cheating in his heart?