I'm actually majoring in computer science, and my professor gave this analysis showing that chess is much too complex to be completely solved anytime soon through brute force calculations:
Assumptions:
1. On average there are 40 legal moves from any board position
2. On average a game of chess takes about 30 moves(60 plys)
Therefore there are about 40^60, which is about 10^96, possible ending positions that the algorithm needs to check for the result.
If the algorithm is capable of evaluating 10^18 ending positions a second(current computers aren't even close to being capable of that), then 10^96 positions divided by 10^18 positions a second would be 10^78 seconds, or roughly 10^70 years. Therefore, there is no way that chess can be solved through brute force calculations anytime soon. Today's engines use much less complicated algorithms that are really good, but not perfect. These algorithms have the human element in them, and thus are never perfect.
Memories. Those were the days. Arkanoid!
Not wishing to go over all these arguments again, I will limit myself to saying that the finitude of chess games is imposed by the fifty-move rule; and that a game that is finite is theoretically solvable. Fortunately for my psyche, that still leaves baseball.
In this thread, however, the initial poster asked whether it would be solved "in the near future." Although near lacks precision, it almost certainly should be limited to the current century, or the lifetimes of the grandchildren of the generation whose parents are currently beginning their courtship. No one has offered evidence in this thread that chess will be solved within this vaguely defined period, and much has been offered to suggest that solving chess is remote enough that baseball parks will need to be enlarged before then (else their scores resemble those in basketball).