I think using chess and go as analogies rather than misses the point. They're not trying to get a system to automate playing a game, not really.
They are trying to get it to make intelligent decisions about complex real-world problems, Go has a very simple set of rules that are always true, never change, and are always in play. None of the complexities of real life are replicated. So it's ability to play Go or Chess or even a more complicated game like a first person shooter are not demonstrations of its ability in the domains in which AI is being advertised for.
I think a far better test of whether a system is actually useful is what it does if it is given no input at all. Does it just sit there forever or does it actually start doing things and currently every single AI system in existence would just stay idle in that scenario.