Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

It's not called anything, because it has never happened. Human beings don't arrive at perfect solutions that span entire games. They never will. Neither will a random move generator. They can choose between candidate moves, and one may be better than the next, but the human choices are not random, they are skill-based. A random move generator using current technology at speed will not play a perfect game of chess before the heat death of the universe, so...

This is why you had to capitulate last time, saying that a random move generator could play a perfect game of chess, but stipulating that it would be like winning 100 lotteries in a single lifetime. Since that is not a real or practical scenario, your attempt falls apart. In your mind, the 10 to the Nth power to one chance still means there's a chance, and so luck exists, but that same argument was made by Jim Carrey in Dumb and Dumber.

When Carlsen or any super-GM loses to a random move generator, or even a 1200 rated player, you be sure and let me know. Then I will entertain your argument...as soon as I deal with the all the flying pigs, I mean.

I don't play on chess.com anymore since I became more active on the forums and started getting challenges from trolls on a regular basis. I haven't really played anything but votechess here for many years. It's a lose-lose proposition. If I won, they'd just try to hound me on the forums.

If votechess were not rife with cheating, I would still play votechess which (on a good team that discusses every move) have by far the most satisfying and educational games of chess you can play here.

The OP question is an interesting one and, having forgotten my previous posts in this thread, I think I will start from scratch again.

Chess is fundamentally a deterministic game. But firstly, if you are playing an imperfect player, there is uncertainty about whether they will blunder. So the action of them blundering is correctly viewed as "luck".

Even in the case the opponent plays predictably (say the opponent is a tablebase playing the alphabetically top move), a specific imperfect player has uncertainty about what will happen because they are unable to do a complete calculation, so uncertain if _they_ will blunder. Whether they do may be their responsibility, but it is still accurately described as luck.

The uncertainty being in the beliefs of a player, it is appropriate for them to have a probabilistic model of what will happen, either a precise one (eg based on the player Elos) or a rough one ("I have a 70% chance of winning from here").

Luck is no more and no less than the variation in outcomes within the uncertainty of a specific viewpoint.

So the answer is "yes".

Fair enough, I also do most of my playing on Lichess. What I meant tho was your request for a game between a 1500 and a 2700 gm, that would justify the discussion for you. Would a blitz game qualify?

I agree with you on the latter point. I've found that those who control vote chess games play what THEY want to play much of the time. It's useless.

Regarding the former point, when I beat people in blitz or when I used to beat them in Daily, virtually no-one ever accused me of cheating. I've always blocked those who trash talked, in any case and maybe that's a tiny minority and I blocked them all, more or less. I don't think it's a problem except for someone to whom it may happen for some secondary reason?

Logically though, any perfect move is merely a good move: one that doesn't change the objective game state assessment from a draw to a loss or from a win to a draw or a loss. Of course, a move that changes the assessment from a loss or a draw to a draw or a win is impossible.

If the game is a draw to start with, then any perfect move is one that doesn't change that to a loss. The point is that different players prefer different strategies and different types of game. Therefore many human games have consisted of perfect (that is, good) moves throughout. There is usually no objectively perfect move which is "better" than all others available and when moves are forced in a long term sense, it's usually possible to identify them by analysis.

So we often can't work out what a perfect move might be and it doesn't make sense to base any rational argument on a myth or a non-existent ideal wouldn't even be a useful ideal were it to be available.

That's a silly position, and based on your equally silly position on solving chess. Of course it does not require the same moves to win when the opposition is not playing perfect moves. Any schoolkid could tell you that.

If chess is a forced draw then there's a very high probably there's a margin for it and not a single series of perfect moves, but that margin is certainly not anywhere close to being discernable by you. Engines routinely massacre what passes for "perfect play" in humans, and they are still learning to trounce each other, ergo, there's no basis for you to set any thresholds whatsoever. You and I are light years away from being able to comment on what constitutes perfect play in any position more complicated than a basic endgame from Reuben Fine.

I'm far more intelligent than you are, Dio. I thought you might have learned that by now. You are certainly not able to explain WHY you think my position is silly with a properly reasoned argument, are you. 
I'm pretty sure you haven't understood any of what I explained to you. When will you grow up?