>>2
Not really, if it's true he's obviously made some quite good advances in approximation techniques, like pi's been worked on pretty extensively, he claims his method is 20 times more efficient, and to say he worked on it on a home computer, and beat records set by super computers, it sounds like he might be right.
Obviously the digits aren't interesting or useful, but the techniques used to find them might be, again not to calculate so many digits necessarily, but to calculate less, faster.