There are many instances of luck.
Your opponent is much higher rated than you but got the flu and forfeited the game.
Or he was out drinking the night before and plays a stinker.
Or he decides to quit chess during the game.
Or he hears of a Bigfoot sighting and resigns to check it out.
There is no such thing as luck in chess, minus mouse slips in online. What we perceive as luck are those favourable circumstances we have no control over, which is usually the opponent's imcompetence.
When you play an opponent of equal strength you have both same competence (or incompetence). You have roughly same probability to make a mistake on every move. When your opponent makes mistakes earlier than you or more often or they are more severe - I think it is luck.
Luck - the things that happen to a person because of chance; the accidental way things happen without being planned (Merriam-Webster dictionary)
There is a whole range of factors you are not taking into account with this, and that is the styles of the players, the fields they play against, what part of the game they are strongest in, etc. Your hypothetical only truly exists when there are two identical human chess players playing each other, a scenario which does not exist.
My very simplistic model served just to show what is luck in chess IMHO. Of course it doesn't take into account lots of factors. But nothing can change a simple fact that mistakes in chess have a random component. Hence we can talk about chance and luck.
It is more than luck=Itis mostly skill
It is more than luck=Itis mostly skill
Everybody has the luck, but only the better ones has the skill to spot it and exploit it.
So , when I loose a game its because I dont have the skills to exploit and spot my luck, and because I makes mistakes that my opponent is able to spot and exploit.
Isn't it funny whenever someone says after defeating a much stronger opponent, "Finally my bad luck runs out!" but never, "Wow I was lucky that time!"
Positives tend to be attributed to the individual (a fluke being representative of someone's "true" skill instead of the more consistent results, such as the erroneous I beat an expert once = I'm an expert) whereas negatives are attributed to "luck" usually 
Very true oogie boogie.
When I beat a higher rated player, I say "I whooped his azz".
This is luck in chess. I thought I was going to lose...but magically, surprisingly won!!
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1233489682
There is no "luck" in chess. There are mistakes of course, where your opponent blunders, etc. But there is no drawing of a card, roll of the dice etc. A ball doesn't take a funny bounce..... That's what I love about the game. No luck, just skill.
There are many instances of luck.
Your opponent is much higher rated than you but got the flu and forfeited the game.
Or he was out drinking the night before and plays a stinker.
Or he decides to quit chess during the game.
Or he hears of a Bigfoot sighting and resigns to check it out.
None of those things are due to luck.
When you beat someone, it is skill. When someone beats you, it is luck.
There is no "luck" in chess. There are mistakes of course, where your opponent blunders, etc. But there is no drawing of a card, roll of the dice etc. A ball doesn't take a funny bounce..... That's what I love about the game. No luck, just skill.
Just like you can't predict or control the dice roll, you can't predict or control when you or your opponent will make a mistake in chess game. Hence there is luck.
You have to be lucky to find those mistakes
Really? So all your hard work studying and learning the game mean nothing. You're just lucky to see tactics. Lucky to see mistakes....
Chess is about 30% to 40% luck. Just look at Topalov at that one tournament or Caruana at Sinquefield Cup last year...
There is no "luck" in chess. There are mistakes of course, where your opponent blunders, etc. But there is no drawing of a card, roll of the dice etc. A ball doesn't take a funny bounce..... That's what I love about the game. No luck, just skill.
You're lucky your definition of 'luck' is so pragmatic. 
luck in chess is where you issue a seek online and its not accepted by some crazy dude addicted to points using an engine.
The strongest player I did beat in "Høstturneringen, Nordstrand" really had bad luck. He played well but fell for a mate in 78, much because he happend to play a variant of my best rehearsed opening that gave me tempo and flow. If he had played any other opening, he would have won.
That he opened the way he did was my luck, and it also was my luck that he after beeing om the heels in the opening went for victory, and not a draw. He miscalculated his ratingadvantage, and thought he should play for win against his 500 points lower rated opponent, even though he was one tempo down. That miscalculation was my luck.