Can you have a higher performance rating in a game and still lose?

If stockfish analyzes a game and finds that someone completely outplayed his opponent but because of one simple oversight gets checkmated or stalmated, did the player with inferior moves really outplay the other?  The reason I ask is because on the Backgammon site I play on a world class engine analyzes each game and if the weaker player is outplayed but still wins that game, the stronger player doesn't lose any rating points.  The ratings are based on the performance rating based on blunders and oversights.

I doubt this could be carried over to chess but it would be interesting.

I have seen this before

Yes. Actually it could be 30% vs 99% with the 30% winning.

Why couldn't chess adopt the Backmmon model with online games?  One could still have an actual win/loss record but if the winner of a game played worse there would be no rating points  lost or gained for either side.  In other words you gain rating points strictly by the performance of your play.   

This would also solve any disconnection that might occur causing one to lose the game which I have seen many complain about here.  It seems there would be a more accurate measure of chess skill reflected in the ratings.  The superior player would always come out with a higher rating against lower skilled players.  If you want to see how it works in real life, play a few games on Backgammon Galaxy where a world class engine monitors each and every game giving an error rate and awarding rating points according to the one with less errors.  It also shows every mistake made in the game along with the best move.

"If you want to see how it works in real life play a few games on Backgammon Galaxy..."

I may actually try that. I hate Chess.

no

just no

If you win you played better when it mattered. A good metaphor for life. There are crucial moments when decisions have large consequences. It's wonderful that chess is played constantly on the win/loss brink, as it's this quality that brings us into a wonderfully altered state of greatly heightened concentration and absorption, that I am conscious of using to soothe my sometimes troubled mind. Take away the constant risk, and you take away much of this.

You wouldn't be taking away the constant risk.  You would still win tournaments and keep the win/loss record.  Just the rating would be more in line with your actual performance.  If you are 1800 and beat a 1300 you would still gain rating points and your opponent would lose points,  but if you won with a worse performance than your opponent your ratings would stay  the same.  The better player would always have a higher rating than the lower player.

I messed up trying to edit the post.

The difference is that Backgammon includes an element of chance.  So you can lose the game through no fault of your own.  Not the case in chess.