How can you even compare backgammon to a chess !?

Just recently I started playing backgammon (long variation) and I have to tell you I wasn't impressed, more over I got bored.

Sure I know how to play good (average +) and I can see some strategy to it, but but no matter how good you play it all depends on a dice , chance, luck.

Also everything is so boring not much of anything in it, you just need to block, move fast , and pretty much hope for doubles all the time so you can make more moves.

How can anyone luck such a dull game?

I have heard it said that the skill in backgammon comes especially with the use of the doubling cube. That is, the difference between a good player and a great player would be seen in knowing when to double, when to accept, and when to reject.

Backgammon is my favourite variant of chess. And since it is in fact that, a chess variant, it makes the two very comparable. 

Better idea than that one guy's idea of rewarding people when they run out of time. 

Back in the late middle ages, a very popular variant of chess involved rolling a die to determine which piece you had to move... 1 = Pawn, 2 = Knight, 3 = Bishop, etc.

This may have some connection with the Church denouncing chess as a gambling game.

I like backgammon and wish I could play it more often. Different games have different rules and personalities. I wouldn't say it *all* depends on luck. There is a greater element of luck in backgammon in chess (and it is likely fair to say that there is *no* luck involved in chess) but this does not mean that skilled players will lose more often against weaker opponents or that strategies are not critical in improving one's chances of victory apart from the dice.

I don't play backgammon often but I think the board has the same colour and you could compare it to King of the hill a bit but they are two different games