Are there military commanders other than Khalid ibn al-Walid who have never been defeated?

I was told that the Malplaquet battle was a French victory since the British lost too many men to continue. Villars even said "Si Dieu nous fait la grâce de perdre encore une pareille bataille, Votre Majesté peut compter que ses ennemis sont détruits" (Which means that if the French would lose another fight like this, their foes would be destroyed). Maurice de Saxe was also never defeated.

[Source: Wikipedia article on Bataille de Malplaquet in French]

Not yet mentioned: Muqali, one of Genghis Khan's finest commanders.

During the invasion of Jin China, Muqali acted as Genghis Khan's second-in-command, and was promoted to Viceroy of China, and was entrusted with a great degree of autonomy once Genghis Khan departed to conquer Central Asia. Unlike many Mongol leaders who were willing to massacre to gain any advantage, Muqali usually attempted to convert foes into friends by more conciliatory means, and change the Mongol image in China. By the time of Ogedei's reign (1229-1241), he was viewed as the best of the extraordinarily talented pool of Mongol generals. Given his undefeated record despite very limited resources, he is likely one of the greatest military commanders in history.

There is also Nader Shah, the last great Asiatic conqueror. Many have called him a military genius comparable to Alexander the Great & Napoleon. He won many victories in spite of being heavily outnumbered. I am not aware of him ever having lost a battle (although he did fight numerous campaigns and I did not look through all of them).

Finally Han general Han Xin is apparently undefeated as well.

Han Xin is best remembered as a brilliant military leader for the strategies and tactics he employed in warfare, some of which became the origins of certain Chinese idioms, he was undefeated in battle and for his accomplishments he was considered the "God of War".

According to Winston Churchill, "A History of the English Speaking People," pp. 90-91:

"For ten years, [the Duke of Marlborough led the armies of the Grand Alliance, [England, the Netherlands, several German states] and during all that period he never fought a battle he did not win or besieged a town he did not take. Nothing like this exists in the annals of war."

He won major battles against the French during Queen Anne's War from 1702-1711 at Blenheim, Ramilles, Oudenarde, and Malplaquet, although some consider the last a "Pyrrhic" victory.

I'm actually a little dubious of the "never defeated" claim in the first place. Not only does it seem highly unlikely, but then there's this:

Khalid utilized his better understanding of terrain in every possible way to gain strategic superiority over his enemies. During his Persian campaigns, he initially never entered deep into Persian territory and always kept the Arabian desert at his rear, allowing his forces to retreat there in case of a defeat

That seems pretty unnecessary (and certainly not worth noting as a smart tactic) if he truly never suffered a rebuff. The more likely explanation is that he was using this tactic to stage ambushes, and then retreating once (if) the superior force organized itself.

Now in military terminology of course both sides like to claim victory if they can at all make a case for it. So what we have taken to doing in order to be somewhat objective about it is saying that the side that retains the field at the end of the engagement was the victor. Admittedly this means often the "victor" has suffered some manner of strategic setback, but that's how we term it.

In either case, any time a commander uses the tactic quoted above to effect a retreat, it is technically considered a "defeat" in the engagement. That doesn't mean its a dumb thing to do, but you can't say he's "undefeated".

I bring this up because history is full of commanders who were very successful overall, but in part because they knew when to retreat, and could do it in good order. In fact, its pretty much required. The counter-example is Pyrrhus, who is said to have "won" pretty much all his major battles against Rome (no retreats), yet lost his war.