Probably not... But to make a complex answer more reasonable please take the following into consideration.
1. The Earth is not a perfect sphere (it's somewhat pear-shaped).
2. The Earth is not perfectly balanced in its pear-shapedness.
3. The Earth is semi-elastic (it's bounce-back from distorting influences is not complete)
4. The Earth is pulled on by the moon (by gravitational tugs)
5. The Earth is slowed by the moon (by tidal forces)
6. The Earth is not a solid body, but has differential movement throughout.
7. No one has a good handle on No. 3 and No. 6
The "Figure Axis" is the axis (or center) about which Earth's mass is balanced. Like the colloquial "center of gravity." Unlike that idea, since the Earth is rotating, it's not a "point." It's more like a line. In any case it's mathematically derived.
Because the Earth is not rigid and has been doing the rotation thing for a while now, the orientation of the "figure axis" has become generally aligned with the rotational axis. It's *deviation* from being identical to the rotational axis due to the 6 factors above (and there's actually more).
AS FOR THE EFFECT of the Chile quake, you need only ask if the quake introduced a change in one or more of the 6 variables above.
HOWEVER, there are more than a handful of models to define, explain and predict the Figure Axis.
Opinions vary with regards to the effect that the figure axis (and changes there of) have on the Rotation (polar) Axis. In fact, there are on going disputes about how to accurately measure (observe) any of this because of a slippery element: Frame of Reference (the answer to the question - "from what benchmark are you measuring this?")
I'm going to refer to a scientific paper, which itself is some tough reading, but the abstract can be helpful to illustrate that we don't really know what we think we know:
"...The conventional procedures of studying the seismic excitation of polar motion are then re-examined accordingly – subject constantly to the question: relative to what reference frame? It is concluded that an inconsistency in the reference frames has prevailed in the literature. In particular, it is asserted that the computed change in the polar motion associated with a (sudden) seismic source is in fact what would be observed in Tisserand's mean frame. The latter has no real-world counterpart from the standpoint of observations, which are invariably made with respect to some geographic reference frame. While this inconsistency is indeed far from trivial in a philosophical sense, the resultant discrepancy is small for all practical purposes thanks to the nearly spherical configuration of the Earth."
I'd take these reports from the Chile quake with a grain of salt.
I hope this helps.
1. Hamiltonian theory for the non-rigid Earth: Semidiurnal terms (J. Getino, J. M. Ferrándiz and A. Escapa) -
2. Rotation of the elastic Earth: the role of the angular-velocity-dependence of the elasticity-caused perturbation (Kubo, Yoshio, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, Volume 105, Issue 4, pp.261-274) - http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009CeMDA.105..261K
3. Earth rotation equations containing both nutation and polar motion (Guo Juny, School of Geodesy and Geomatics, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China) - http://www.springerlink.com/content/a4v83198602582r6/
4. On the excitation of the Earth's free wobble and reference frames (B. Fong Chao, Geodynamics Branch, Goddard space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland) - http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119533916/abstract
· 10 years ago