Slashdot Mirror
Behind Deep Blue
My wife gave me this book as a birthday present. I was thrilled that finally someone wrote what really happened behind the scenes at the two historic matches, but Behind Deep Blue turned out to be far more than just about the matches. The early part of the book is equally absorbing and full of surprises.
Who & What
Feng-hsiung Hsu, the author, was the father of the Deep Blue project and a troublemaker. When you see a section title like "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood" in a book about computer history, you know something is up. What he did in this particular section would have been an awful career move today, like landing him in a jail. As it was, he almost got kicked out of grad school. This precarious position played an important role in how the project got started.
The book has two main parts: the beginning and the history of the project at Carnegie Mellon University, and the successful conclusion at IBM, including the two matches with Kasparov.
Carnegie Mellon
During the matches, the IBM web site de-emphasized the Carnegie Mellon part of the project. The instant chess books also failed to fill the void. It was a shame.
The main ideas behind the project apparently were formed at Carnegie Mellon--several of them at a fateful night in Hsu's apartment. I know little about IC design, but his description of the new ideas discovered at that night, underlying the first single chip chess move generator, made me feel like that I could design the chip myself. His thought process in coming to the discovery is also quite interesting. Hsu seems to be a diehard Trekkie. In his description of the selective search algorithm "singular extensions," he repeatedly used the Starship Enterprise in his analogies.
For fans of AI, the book contains a big surprise. Even though Deep Blue's triumph over Kasparov might be considered as a major victory for AI, several of the early members involved in its creation had a definite anti-AI opinion. An exact quote from the book is "AI is bullshit." Hsu himself had an ambiguous feeling toward AI. The main approach taken by the Deep Blue project was to push the technology envelope, which is certainly non-AI, but he also talked of the need for chess knowledge repeatedly in the book.
The central story at Carnegie Mellon revolves around the rivalry between a ragtag group of graduate students and a powerful professor, Dr. Hans Berliner, who is a former World Correspondence Chess Champion and world renowned authority on computer games. I have a feeling that there are things left unsaid in the book, but the intensity of the rivalry and the male egos all come through clearly. One of the thorny points to the students, strangely enough, was that they were not Dr. Berliner's students but the press kept on saying they were.
After the students came out with Deep Thought, the first Grandmaster strength computer, the incorrect press perception produced a very funny story. The story of "The Poor Lieutenant Colonel at Darpa" tells how an overzealous reporter wrote a cover article for the British magazine Spectator, purporting to have discovered that the U.S. Department of Defense had enlisted the service of chess computers. In the process of this discovery, the reporter phoned Dr. Berliner, whom the reporter thought was heading the Deep Thought project, for the inside scoop, and afterwards cold called a Lieutenant Colonel at Darpa in charge of expert systems research, which had nothing to do with the Deep Thought work...
IBM
I did not realize that the Deep Blue team played Kasparov publicly three times. The first time was with the machine Deep Thought, during the transitional period when the team moved to IBM. Kasparov won that match 2-0. The publicity from this match and the subsequent confusion between "Deep Thought" and "Deep Throat" were partially responsible for the new Deep Blue name. The original Deep Thought name came from the sci-fi trilogy Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy.
The story of the completion of the first Deep Blue repeats a theme that recurs throughout the book--the machines always barely work in time. "Four Hours to Spare" describes a period when the first Deep Blue chip had to be used in a new program and had to win or tie an exhibition match, in order for the project to survive. The team barely got the new program "working" with four hours to spare. They managed a tie.
The late-to-arrive situation in the 1996 Deep Blue match itself was not much better--the very first ever game played by Deep Blue was none other than its first game with Kasparov. Deep Blue itself was being put together only weeks before. Deep Blue won this game. What Kasparov said right after the historic game is priceless. There should have been a microphone at the playing table. The behind-the-scenes coverage of this match is more detailed than available anywhere else, but not quite as extensive as that of the final match in the book.
Deep Blue's loss in 1996 spurred a series of activities by the team. I don't recall seeing them mentioned explicitly during the 1997 match. A new Deep Blue chip was designed, along with new software tools for match preparations. The story of "The Phantom Queens" is quite amusing. The team discovered a design bug in the new chip that caused phantom queens to be generated on the chip's internal chessboard. One way to fix the bug was to slow down the chip by disabling a design feature. As a result of this slowdown, we have the only match outcome of what might have happen if Deep Blue had been running at the same speed as commercial chess programs when competing against them. I will let you find out for yourself what the outcome was. A workaround was later implemented, and Deep Blue did not suffer the same slowdown in the match against Kasparov.
The big chapter on the 1997 match alone is worth the price of the book for me. It was a great deal of fun to read. The wild accusations, the missed opportunities, the psychological war game off the board, the battle through the media, and plain simple misunderstanding all make for wonderful reading. The arbiter, Carol Jarecki, summed it up quite well, "This match has it all." I don't want to spoil all the fun for you, but I will mention two interesting tidbits from game 1 and game 6. Deep Blue played the last move of game 1 as a result of bug, although the game was already lost. Kasparov's team was surprised by the move and spent all night to find out why Deep Blue played the move and concluded that Deep Blue played its move because it saw a very deep mate if it had played what should be played... Game 6 was widely reported as Kasparov forgetting his own opening preparations. It could very well have been a deliberate gamble instead. All the other programs at the time, including the 1996 version of Deep Blue, very possibly would have lost the white side of the game.
Other Stuff
The epilogue of the book contains a short description of what happened after 1997, including an aborted attempt to answer Kasparov's repeated challenge for a new match. The first appendix gives autobiographic materials. The other two give selected game scores and pointers for further reading.
General Comments
This is not a chess book, and you don't need to be a chess player to enjoy it. The few paragraphs on technology should be readable for high school students or younger kids with scientific interests. Or you can just skip them.
The book is not really one contiguous story, but a collection of short stories and anecdotes. I read the whole book in one setting, but you could easily read the book in smaller chunks at a time.
Quibbles
Okay, you probably don't need an index for this book, but it would have been nice to have one. Interestingly enough, at www.bn.com, the review mentioned "a strange, inaccurate index", which must have there in the prepublication copy.
Conclusions
I highly recommend the book for general reading. You are not going to learn how to build something like Deep Blue from this book, but you get a good sense of what kind of human struggles it takes. Computer scientists and electrical engineers should get a good kick out of the book, but a layperson can enjoy the book just as well. If you have young kids with interests in engineering or science, this might be a good gift for them.
You can purchase Behind Deep Blue from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Actually it can be...
I have been to a number of matches, alwais fun live and on TV.
And yes not seeing it live takes away some of the charm.....
move game. True, human's can't interpret the billions of possible moves, and only understand basic repeated patterns (try it with you local grandmaster, they can memorize any board of a game in play, but can't memorize a randomly placed board). True, human pattern recognition is far better than machines, but in the end chess is just billions of possible moves, and now that computers can process far enough into the game, they need never lose.
True AI would be a real thinking, feeling machine, and I'm not sure if that's possible. Perhaps the day when we see a computer sit down and ponder it's origins, and even pray, then we can think we've created an AI ( but will it have a soul?).
A. Rightmann
I was rushing home to catch the ending part of game 6 of the 1997 Kasparov vs. Deep Blue match
Yeah, tonight I'm rushing home. I've got paint drying in the living room. Don't wanna miss a single moment!
I don't have a sig...Do you??
Think about it, the more human like computers get the more problems we have. Could you imagine your computer having PMS?
Since chess moves are limited to a certain domain, what *would* be a good game for creating and/or testing an AI computer system?
You would think that Poker would be a good choice (real poker, not Video Poker). You don't win just by playing the odds -- you have to gauge your opponents' playing style and determine when they're bluffing and when you should bluff. I know how tough that is... I lost $40 to one guy in high school playing nickel-ante poker (do you still have that watch, Ted?).
But so much of that kind of poker depends on body language... setting a CRT in one of the chairs just wouldn't be the same.
Now, when they make a computer that can play An Enchanted Evening, I'll be impressed! (And maybe a little creeped out...)
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
If you are interested in the AI implications try David B. Fogel's "Blondie24: Playing at the Edge of AI instead".
Blondie24 taught itself to play checkers using an evolutionary approach developed by Fogel. While it was never as good as the specialist programs like Chinook it was a better player than its creator.
Unlike DeepBlue Blondie24 was not given any game specific code and it still managed to be one of the best players around. I believe DeepBlue had predefined strategies coded in and a database of thousands of end games (but I may be wrong).
Tom
I mean, it would be able to communicate directly to it's creator.
Blar.
Bobby Fischer was hidden in the "Computer room." He was the one who really beat Gary Kasparov.
How ya like dat?
The underlying fear that makes the whole story interesting isn't that deep blue beat kasparov. It's a concrete example of technology dehumanizing and demoralizing a Grand Master. It has all the baggage of "fear of technology". It's all those fears movies like Terminator, War Games and other less notable movies try to explore. Who cares about deep blue. Lets talk about how fear of technology and loosing control make people obsess over the games deep blue played against kasparov.
Chess will be to a computer as tic tac toe is to
to anyone over the age of 8 and Cowboy neal.
Also, if you're interested in chess programs from a programmer point of view this link has quite a few links to various tutorials on chess playing algorithms as well as many different free Winboard engines.
The verdict is in! The award for the most pathetic thing I have ever heard on Slashdot goes to ianb104 for saying, "I was rushing home to catch the ending part of game 6 of the 1997 Kasparov vs. Deep Blue match..."
-gerbik
Think about it. Albert Einstein didn't do physics because he could, he did it because he wanted to. It doesn't matter how intelligent you are; if you don't have a purpose to put it to, you may as well be a jellyfish. Emotion provides direction for intelligence.
Of course, the converse is also true: intelligence provides direction for emotion.
-- Hamster
If we can convince gullible humans that they have a soul, we can definitely convince gullible computers that they have a soul. give it time. it was only what, mabye 20 years ago the apple // e was 'top knotch' ?
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Artificial Intelligence: "The ability of a computer or other machine to perform those activities that are normally thought to require intelligence." You seem to be arguing that Deep Blue was not concious or sentient. I agree with both of those, but that's not what an AI is.
Please, Deep Blue is not AI
It is all fine and well that you say Deep Blue is not AI, but nowhere in the article is it even suggested that it is! In fact, the creators say that it isn't AI. Your entire comment is a complete waste of space.
Did you just want to get something off your chest?
Keep passing the open windows...
the term "AI" encompasses a lot of subject areas. its an incredibly complex and interdisciplinary field.
for instance, it covers everything from playing chess (and game playing generally) to image recognition to genetic algorithms to autonomous agents to logical reasoning/inference to fuzzy logic and beyond.
in other words, you'd be surprised what "AI" covers.
in the last "renaissance" of AI (around the 1970s or thereabouts), the goal of AI was to create intelligent computers. this, as one might guess, was found to be pretty damn hard.
nowadays the goal (very generally of course) is to create computers that _ACT_ intelligently. there IS a difference.
as with many things, tis a matter of degree. some of the most interesting AI that i have seen of late has involved modeling the intelligences of animals like insects. while perhaps not overly "intelligent" in the universe of intelligent beings, insects do manage to perform well in real environments which is far better than most "AIs" can claim.
here's a good beginning (and even intermediate to advanced in some ways) book on AI.
dkm92end
As much as I like IBM for their support of GNU/Linux and other Free/Open-Source Software, Deep Blue is just a fraud.
The fact is, the machine was reprogrammed DURING the chess match. Gee, go figure. The people at IBM built it SPECIFICALLY to beat Kasparov, and it was promptly dismantled after the game, leaving Kasparov with no opportunity for a rematch. Also, who else did this Deep Blue play that was any good? More proof that it was designed to play against Kasparov's style.
Sorry, but there was heavy and reasonably criticism of Deep Blue, and IBM didn't alleviate matters by having it dismantled before a rematch could be worked out, or before any other top players could have played it.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
while ( sins() > 0 ) {
int i,x;
i = confess(sins());
for ( x = 0; x <= i; x++ )
say_hail_mary();
}
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
is horrible.
> Even though Deep Blue's triumph over Kasparov
> might be considered as a major victory for AI
Bzzt! Wrong! There is nothing much in the way of intelligence involved in chess, no matter what many would have us believe. It is a mildly entertaining game, at which a brute force approach yields excellent results - as Deep Blue proved.
I have few times seen anything quite as pathetic as Kasparov claiming that Deep Blue was being helped by a human. He surely knows a hell of a lot about chess, but he surely is thoroughly ignorant about the way computers work. Pretty like those people that would chat with ELIZA, during the late 60s.
number of players: 0
Deep Blue cannot predict that move, eh?
(*BADUM-SHHH*)
But go players won't be bested by computers for some time to come. I personally find it a bit depressing playing a game that a computer can beat me at, but with go, I can beat the best programs I've tried, which not long ago were the best in the world. Humans are far more challenging opponents to someone who's studied go part time for a few years.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's already been done.
Understanding why computers may never dominate chess at the elite levels, you have to understand something about chess history and the nature of elite chess players, their study habits, and how they learn.
Great chess players spend weeks preparing for a tournament. They look over all the best games that have been played and look for improvements. To some extent, the matches are already won or lost before the games even start. Even if the game moves out of established "theory" early on, the player can still rely upon the principles he or she remembers from studying other games. At the truly elite levels, chess players can spend months and months working on a specific move in a specific variation designed to beat a specific opponent. They study the games previously played by their opponent and look for weakness, often employing computers and thousand of man-hours of effort, checking and double checking every reasonable combination of moves.
This is one of the reasons, I personally, do not believe computers will ever truly triumph. Someone earlier pointed out that the perfect game would always end in a draw, but what people have to realize is that most human games at the high levels of competition are virtually perfect. And if they make a mistake on a given day (even a minescule one, not noticeable to the vast majority of us patzers) they will correct it next time. You gotta remember that every game played by an elite computer against an elite human instantly becomes part of the canon of chess knowledge. In a sense, every game of chess played comes closer and closer to the perfect game.
Most of you here don't know this, but the match of Deep Blue v. Kasparov was extremely unfairly tilted against Kasparov.
1. IBM specifically built Deep Blue to play Kasparov, not to be a general-purpose chess machine.
2. Deep Blue was reprogrammed between matches. Again, extremely unfair. As if normal opponents can "reprogram themselves" between matches. This is the equivalent of switching opponents in the middle of a chess match.
3. Fischer was not allowed to study any of Deep Blue's previous games, or to play matches against Deep Blue to familiarize himself with Deep Blue, yet Deep Blue was given extensive knowledge of Kasparov's styles specifically. In fair tournaments, each player has the opportunity to study the other. Kasparov did not have that opportunity.
In short, this was one of the most unfair matches in chess history. All IBM proved is that if you cheat enough and put the other player at enough of an unfair disadvantage, you can win, even if they are the second greatest ever (Fischer is the greatest ever). This was nothing more than a publicity stunt by IBM to get more recognition and money, and they did it by mandating that Kasparov agree to a fundamentally unfair match.
It is interesting that in the game in which Kasparov won, he played anti-chess, using very unorthidox "non-best" moves. Interestingly, this is what its rumored that Fischer is doing now-a-days in his annonymous online blitz games, starting out with very unorthidox openings (i.e., moving all pawns forward).
The best games of the last century were played by Fischer and Kasparov. The thing that we're looking for this century is Fischer v. Kasparov, the match the chess world deserves to see.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
He wasn't just rushing home for the Kaspy-Deep Blue game. He was rushing home to a fine lady.
After encountering a post like that I hardly know where to begin.
First of all, IBM participated in this chess match as a publicity stunt. The technology they were promoting was their ability to built a box with a very large number of computing elements that coordinated effectively. The nature of the standard chess algorithms (90% brute force) make them a good "animal model" for the kinds of technical problems involved in building massively parallel computing systems.
Chess has an additional chachet because in the history of computational theory Alan Turing and others from his era considered chess to be a good "animal model" of complex human thought processes. Back in that era it was broadly assumed that the hallmark of human intelligence was formal reasoning. Within twenty years the evidence started to mount that the human mind is actually very poor at formal reasoning, and that the areas where the human mind holds significant advantages over deductive computation are of a stochastic nature (what people often refer to as "pattern recognition").
The next turn in this story is uniformly neglected once the narrator begins to beat on the man-versus-machine jungle drum. (Another characteristic of the human mind is that analytic thought ceases completely once the preening reflex takes over.) It turns out that it is more useful to build machines that do the things we are not already exceptionally good at. Like adding more than three numbers together and getting the right answer, first thing on a Monday morning after the Super Bowl weekend.
The reason that computers have been so greatly developed in the brute force dimension is because humans are terribly bad at this stuff. The reason why computers have not developed stochastic algorithms of the same power is because humans are already damn good at stochastic pattern recognition. Hand me a four function calculator I can calculate sums and products faster than Newton, Gauss, or Kepler. Yet our best results in visual processing are easily outmatched by a four week old puppy. Do you think it is easy to win grant approvals to underperform a four week old puppy? This is yet another example of how poor the human mind is an analytic reasoning. It's terribly stupid for us to think that underperforming a four week old puppy is slight progress, but we do.
A lot of people say, because of this situation, that computers aren't very good at this kind of application. That's not true. They are good at this kind of application (and they can still get an awful lot better), just not good enough to impress anyone who was born with superior innate abilities courtesy of mother nature and 100 million years. If you look at recent advances in accoustic processing, such as filtering background noise, there are clear signs that we are entering a phase of surprisingly rapid progress. Visual systems are a harder problem, I suspect the same progress curve will be shifted back by about ten years.
In this light, the most important knowledge we gain right now from the study of chess computers is the nature of the boundary between brute force methods and alternative methods. Deep Blue represents the fairly extreme side of brute processing. The advantage held by Deep Blue, at that point in time, was the vast number of coordinated processing elements it contained. IBM had the choice of pursuing a pure brute force approach, or a brute force algorithm tempered with subtlety. Unfortunately, the state of the art is such that adding subtlety to a massively parallel system seriously degrades the massive parallelism. Pure brute force is relatively easy to coordinate. Hybrid brute force is a nightmare to coordinate.
IBM being what they are, and the economic incentives for begin good at brute force being what they are, you can guess which tactic IBM chose. There was only one problem remaining. Pure brute force was not yet at the level of beating Kasparov. The pure brute force has a fairly large number of known weaknesses and sinkholes. The problem for IBM was to "tweak" the evaluator and search heuristics so that it didn't fall into the classic holes (which Kasparov would have exploited mercilessly). So they trained the program (by debasing various weighting factors) to avoid the kinds of positions that offer blood to a shark of a known and especially vicious species.
At this point it is worth mentioning that Kasparov was actually a fortunate choice of opponent for IBM. Kasparov has long been known for his tremendous ability to compute complex lines of play and he has used this weapon to crush many excellent players who could have competed on even terms otherwise. The problem for Kasparov is that his computational ability is roughly equivalent to a four day old puppy feotus compared to the computational ability of Deep Blue. Because Kasparov favours computationally rich positions, he has a tendency to play into mentally exhausting positions if his adversary shows the slightest weakness. The only aspect of the competition I regard as unfair is that Kasparov wasn't given nearly enough time to rest between games.
The question about building a computer SPECIFICALLY (emphasis from the other dork) to beat Kasparov really misses the point. I would guess there is perhaps 1% of such a system that can be tweaked without the immediate prospect of the entire house of cards collapsing. Half of the Deep Blue source code has nothing to do with chess at all (the parallelism, transposition tables, the basic min-max framework, etc.) Leaf evaluator functions have been studied for decades. How much do you think you can improve one in three days? And still have it run correctly in dedicated silicon? I don't think so.
So you end up tweaking a few weighting factors, such as the desirability of retaining the queens. You can witness this same kind of tuning in an elementary school chess club: "Joe is a titan with his queen at the end of the game. I'm going to try as hard as I can to whack his queen with my queen!" Kasparov SPECIFICALLY beaten by a kindygartner! (To quote Home Alone.)
The kind of tuning they did between games is on the order of the batting coach telling his hitters about the pitcher they will face in their next start "watch out for that wicked slider nailing the outside corner". If they didn't tune the program between games, once Kasparov found an area of superiority, he could have won every game on the same basic pitch. What would be interesting about watching chess played like that? And these tweaks were no simple matter. Your desire not to see the queens exchanged could cause some other aspect of how Deep Blue plays the game to deteriorate spectacularly. There's a name for this risk: it's called regression, and it's the curse of clever improvements. If tweaking was 1% as effective as the previous poster would have us believe, a computer would be president already. If your program is tuned to a local optimum, any single parameter you adjust makes the program play worse. In human beings 99.9% of genetic mutations (cosmic tweaks) are benign (if you are lucky) or deleterious, often fatally deleterious. In fact, large chunks of the human genetic system is devoted to removing tweaks. Kasparov didn't get to be world champion by having only one strength. He beat everyone out there, who represent the best of every different style. What do you think was happening between games? They change a 1.6 weighting factor to 1.55 and Kasparov falls to pieces? His vanquished opponents will lynch you if they hear you saying that.
I think Kasparov with more rest between games would have beaten Deep Blue. Ten years from now a machine computationally equivalent to Deep Blue will be a very ordinary piece of equipment. What's the point of keeping Deep Blue alive if they aren't going to invest in continual improvement at the software level as well? Anyone who thinks IBM was setting themselves up for a long term participation in the man versus machine debate really has no clue as to why IBM involved themselves in this chess match to begin with.
Let's not forget that Deep Blue played some positions Kasparov was convinced he would win better than Kasparov believes any human opponent could have played those positions. He commented at the time on how Deep Blue would constantly amaze him by finding slight resources in losing positions that stretched the process out, sometimes until Deep Blue stretched the losing position all the way to a draw. This is a classic observation about computer chess: if these programs weren't so damn good at hording slight resources, they might not be despised for their strategic weakness. The problem with computer chess is they are penny wise and pound foolish. But then we forget that the computer has no difficulty in keeping track of 100,000 slight advantages in a position each worth 0.001 cents.
What I find interesting to observe is the progress of programs like Fritz that plays at a very high level with not nearly as much brute force as employed by Deep Blue. It's a very difficult thing to successfully exchange brute force with additional subtlety. It's like grafting a plastic heart into a human being. Most forms of subtlety are immediately rejected by the host brute. It's difficult to add subtlety into chess algorithms, because the subtlety has to be manufactured exclusively with platinum, titanium, and teflon, otherwise it does more harm than good.
The best thing about having such great chess programs on the classical paradigm is that they will serve as an excellent foil to test out new classes of algorithms. Along the way we'll learn an amazing amount about the limitations and advantages of brute force versus domain heuristics. Compared to that, I find the man versus machine jungle drum exceedingly dull.
Damn. I can't believe I wrote a post this long in a freaking web form. When the computers find out, they'll laugh like hell. Long live 1980.
I'm curious--what exactly happens when Deep Blue plays another instance of Deep Blue? Would having a chessmaster observe a series of games like this create an advantage? Also, how does Deep Blue determine what it's most optimal first move would be? Is it random (from a selection of openings) or deterministic?
Wow, that was along ramble wihch missed the point.
No one's saying that IBM intended to be a long-term player in the chess arena. That still doesn't justify their underhanded tactics in denying Kasparov or anyone else a rematch.
The simple fact is, this match was so unfairly biased against Kasparov from the start that its completely meaningless. The only significant outcome of this match is that Kasparov's ego took a big hit, as can be observed in Kasparov v. Kramnick.
As you mentioned, Kasparov wasn't given enough resting time between each match. This puts him at an unfair disadvantage, as computers need no rest. He wasn't given any time to prepare against Deep Blue by playing practice games against it: IBM denied him that. Deep Blue was modified between matches and designed with Kasparov's style of play in mind. In short, there was no doubt that Kasparov would lose this match because he suffered every possible disadvantage a human opponent could suffer.
Thus, Kasparov v. Deep Blue was nothing but a meaningless farce.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
--I really caught the excitement you felt while reading it... And you left out a lot of really good juicy bits that make me want to check the book out.
--Darn you, sir! Darn you like a sock!!
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
Deep Blue treats chess like a search problem. That's all.
A friend of mine (we've been shootin' buddies since the BBS days) worked on the hardware team for Deep Blue. He told me the machine was immediately turned into an organ donor to meet customer commitments for that quarter's revenues... Typical of the Big Blue he and I worked for.
Friends help you move... Real friends help you move bodies...