king's gambit d6

1 e4 e5

2 f4 d6

is d6 a bad move? why?

Like scottk74 said there is nothing wrong with 2...d6 and it is still possible to transpose to the fischer line after 3.Nf3 exf.  though i have a feeling white may have something better than that.

not too good not too bad

hi everyone,

i'm working on my kgd repertoire. how do i prepare against 2..d6? there istn't much i can find about it. is it a case of using an engine/looking at the databases? i've studied a few other lines, on which there is plenty of resource.

as a more general point, if someone makes a less than book move on move 2 or 3 of a line i am working with, this is where i am finding i have the most holes in my study pattern. they also seem to be the most difficult holes to fill.

comments about if you are less than 1800 then don't study openings, not required. i also realise that if i am playing in the 1300-1500 arena then early deviations are to be expected.

thanks all.

You see the part in red?  If there is any remote truth to this, you have no business playing the King's Gambit.  Quite Frankly, I don't think anybody has any business playing the King's Gambit as it's busted now-a-days (This ain't 1970, folks!) 

But either way, with any opening, if you know what to do against book moves, but have no clue what to do against Non-Book moves, you have no business playing whatever opening that may apply to because what this goes to show is that you know nothing about the opening what-so-ever, and that you are merely mimicking moves from a book like a robotic monkey.

One needs to have a true understanding of what is going on in order to be able to understand why certain moves are either inferior or outright bad.

For example, let's take the French.  Outside of the Exchange Variation, Black's plan is pretty clear cut.  Attack d4.  Keeping this in mind, let's take the Qb6 variation of the French Advance.  After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 (Attack d4) 4.c3 (Guard d4) Nc6 (Attack d4) 5.Nf3 (Guard d4) Qb6 (Attack d4) etc.

Well, if you are White, and you play 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Nc6 and have no clue why that move is bad, then quite frankly, you have no business playing the White side of the Advance Variation of the French Defense.

There's a reason I don't play the Najdorf.  It's not because I whine and complain like many others on this site about closed positions or open positions or semi-open positions or tactical positions or positional positions or boring positions or whatever.  It's simple.  It's because I truly don't "get it".  I've tried to understand it 4 different times.  My brain doesn't think the way it needs to in order to master the Najdorf.  So I don't play it.  The author of the text highlight in red should be admitting the same thing about the King's Gambit!

See the Kings Gambit thread a couple down. At the end of the thread there is a very detailed analysis of 2...d6 lines...

No I dont think it makes you a robot if you like to read and study lines. Thanks for the helpful and inoffensive post BTP.