Failure is not only an option, but can be a necessity

There is an experienced chess grandmaster who laments that he has lost many ELO points, which are the rating by which Grandmasters are measured.
He says his record in tournaments is: ‎54 wins and 86 draws - and here is the important thing - no losses! He lost many ELO points because he is drawing against, and not beating, chess players with low ELO.
It's quite fascinating that a man's downfall is so well correlated by his *not* losing ANY games. I've never seen anything so strongly scientific in support of the notion that one must take risks or one will, by not losing, lose!
Obviously, the grandmaster needs to take more risks and win more games. Though he will lose more games, his score will go up. It's an uplifting story because no one likes losing but by not losing you can be a greater failure yet!
And as Kasparov says, you learn more from your failures than your successes so a failure can be an investment in the future.
Blimey what a preachy post I've created :-)