>Is this supposed to be a good thing in a game?

Absolutely. Maybe not for a sport, but unless you're talking about the pure competitive aspect of it, most games benefit from having that level of accessibility. Bad players need to feel like they can win games. Even if they don't know how, they'll feel like they can win again.

One of the big draws to any game is the idea that you aren't just measuring your skill/experience at the game against everyone else playing, it's like when everyone comes over to play Super Smash Bros but you can tell the host has been playing on his own to practice, it takes a lot of the fun out of it. You can also use the example in SSB of playing with items on. Sure, really competitive players will hate the randomness that comes from items but the whole point of that randomness is to give everyone else a fighting chance.

I guess it depends on what you want out of a "game". If you're only looking at it through the lens of Chess where luck is virtually nonexistent and skill is the ultimate deciding factor, you're going to take a lot of issue with anything that upsets that balance. But, in practice, most people play games for enjoyment, not for sport.

Elements of chance can both make a game more accessible to beginners and raise the skill ceiling fro pros at the same time. It's more accessible, because a beginner player might still get lucky and win through pure chance. But it also raises the skill ceiling, because you need to work with probability on top of strategy. You might sometimes make the right move and still lose. And you might sometimes make the wrong move and still win. But that also makes it more challenging to improve above a certain level, since you need a deeper analysis than 'did I win?' to understand what you did right and wrong. It does mean that unlike chess, where the superior player will likely win 100/100 matches, a superior backgammon player might only win 60-70 games out of 100. Learning to combine strategy and probability is valuable, and arguably maybe even more applicable to the real world than the pure strategy of chess.

Not quite. Take bridge for example. The fact that it is not a perfect information game is what makes it one of the most interesting and deep games in the world. Suddenly there's a whole layer of deduction, imperfect information gathering, information exchange, etc.

You seem to view "it promotes gambling" as a negative. I happen to think backgammon is a great game precisely for this reason.

The fundamental skill in backgammon is managing variance. Since there are many possible outcomes of the dice that you can't control, your job as a player is to put your checkers into position such that you're maximizing good outcomes and minimizing bad outcomes.

Yes, in any giving game, a poor player might roll very well and win that game, but over a large sample, the better player will absolutely dominate.

Backgammon also has the advantage over poker in the sense that it's still fun to play in the absence of gambling. Poker is dreadfully boring if no money is on the line.

But it also give a player a fighting chance even if they are behind in material. In top flight chess there is no spectacular against the odds, coming from behind victories as is seen in many other games and sports.

as a competitive scrabble player yes, that's one of the great things about the game. it makes it possible to have exciting games against both stronger and weaker players, because there is still that element of luck that makes it possible for either side to win regardless of rating difference. i've won individual games against world champions, which is something that could never happen in chess.