You're equivocating on "solved." Solved as in performing as well as humans, not solved in the mathematical sense which is both 1) not necessarily possible, and 2) nothing anybody has ever named as a test for AI.
No, that's correct. Checkers is solved; there is an algorithmic solution. Chess and Go have computer systems that exceed human performance, but are not solved.
"Solved" means having a solution to a problem. In context, we're talking bout whether or not neural networks can detect truth better than "decades of work by experts to reach consensus." So, in this case, solving would be detecting truth better than the status quo, not detecting truth 100% of the time. In the example of Go, the problem was "playing Go better than the best humans." So in that sense, the problem was solved. Adding your own, unfavorable definition of "solved" to the discussion is unwarranted.
“Hmm how should I get to work tomorrow? Normally I’d take the car, but after adopting a stance of distractive pedantism I realized that a car isn’t an acceptable solution to my transportation problem.”
Like please explain what definition of solved you are using. It’s not one most people would be familiar with.
The fact that we don't have a better solution now is why it's worth researching. We only have modern cars because we didn't consider transportation "solved" when we had horse-pulled carriages. Many people are looking for better solutions right now, because we believe they certainly exist.