You're really out to die on this field, aren't you? I don't even think that makes sense in response to the OP's question. This is a question of "can", not "should" and Ban tutors is approaching it at an angle that's tangential at best.
In the strictest, most methodical/mathematical way, the format can actually be "solved"... except with the caveat that there are "brain-dead" restrictions placed on some decision maneuvers and the acceptance that the end result of any given simulation via such a restriction is essentially utterly useless since the restriction by itself outright goes against the real-life unpredictability of an actual player's reaction. Yeah, that also means it should be entirely computer-operated, since I would't trust any group of Magic players to consistently remember which creature to Dismember based on a myriad of decisions made earlier by all parties involved (alongside with or without prior deck knowledge) in order to maintain the restriction for data collection.
Long story cut short, it is technically possible, but it's also bluntly speaking a pointless quest for a pointless result. Even if we stopped taking into account new cards from today onward, it would take more than a lifetime to gather accurate data at all - for all tournament reports and forum discussions are essentially worthless to a concentrated data collection program based on certain restrictions... and that's assuming the dedicated group doesn't make the occasional mistake that renders an entire game moot in terms of data collection.
I'm not versed enough in technology to figure out whether it's possible to code a program within a lifetime that can calculate that instantly afterwards (with the same caveat of no new cards onward), but even if it's possible, it changes nothing that the generated result would be worth less than an individual's personal analysis and adaptation of his or her own meta. In fact, it takes one curveball of a player acting out-of-the-ordinary to throw the later's analysis to be "roughly invalid" already, let alone a computer-generated result that probably can't grasp the rough range to begin with.
And all of that above is based on a traditional criteria of winning, which many have pointed out is pretty much a "brain-dead" restriction of its own to begin with. (Which means like-wise, I suppose if you add-in a different restriction of "knowing what your opponents want to achieve" instead you can run another grand simulation of actively "winning by denying them that" and come up with a computer-generated result of optimal decklists for each given set of opponents, but it'll also still be less useful than the playmat an actual game is on.)
EDH is the D&D of MTG. Trying to "solve" it is akin to trying to solve D&D, generally you're better of with the "default in-a-social-vacuum solution" of trying to min-max for your meta and hope for the best.