As an avid chess player myself, chess has come a long way in the realm of computers, but chess is far from "solved." Checkers or Connect 4 and other games like that have been "solved" with massive computer calculation, but this is still not the case for chess. Granted, a chess engine on your phone could probably beat a chess grandmaster - but this is not the same as calculating all of the possibilities and "solving" the game. Chess has approximately 10 to the 43rd power legal chess positions - that is "1" with 43 zeroes after it! (Known as the Shannon Number for mathematician Claude Shannon who calculated this). This is only the number of legal chess positions possible, it doesn't include move orders, opening transpositions or anywhere close to actual "games." The amount of memory a computer would need to even store these moves (power and ability to calculate would take even way more space) is so massive that it is currently nowhere near possible unless we have another huge computer breakthrough like the micro-chip in the 1990s did.
As far as poker goes, it will never be solved from the "human game" [of poker] I don't think, since psychology is such an important part of poker and the computer gives zero consideration to this. If a computer was to use purely math then poker is already "solved" via Nash Equilibrium calculations and GTO Theory. As poker players fully understand though: humans do not always make the optimal play, so there is clearly more to poker than just the math - in this view, poker isn't only not "solved" but it will NEVER be solved if a computer doesn't take psychology into account. Legends like Doyle Brunson call poker a "people game."
It reminds me of something Phil Hellmuth once said: it was something to the effect of, "I love playing 'the math guys' because I know what they will do. They play the cards and I play them [the person and their tells]."
