Is black doomed?

Of course it's a bad thing.

It means that you have started executing one plan, got half-way into it and are already in full contact with the enemy, and THEN you decide to undo what you've already done and start fresh on a different plan... WHILE the enemy is already attacking you.

Naturally the most likely result is total confusion followed by a massacre.

In other words in order to go for a restricted two pawns side by side defense would require black to move the knight that he has already placed on c6.

Right. And the Knight is the only thing guarding the e-Pawn, so that would need to be addressed first. And meanwhile, White is still moving forward... would you even have time to set up the restricted center? I would say that Black has already wasted too much time to afford it.

In order to set up this restricted two pawns side by side centre defense would it work if black was to focus on protecting the E pawn before moving the knight?

Why do you WANT to get half-way into one plan and then un-do it all and start a different plan? Wouldn't it be a better idea to just play plan #2 right from the start of the game?

To answer your question, that would work if White just sat back and did nothing in the mean-time. But the odds are that he is going to quickly play c3 (forcing you to move your misplaced Bishop again), then castle, then play d4.

By then, you'll only be half-way through switching from plan #1 to plan #2, and you'll very likely get caught with your pants around your ankles.

White going d4 can't be all that bad because black could just go exd4 by taking the d4 pawn with the e5 pawn.

Superior development is increasingly important the more OPEN the position is.

If you're going to play a time-wasting move like Bb4 in the opening, then exd4 is probably a mistake in principle because it opens the position more.

Also... after Black's exd4 White will reply with cxd4 and Black will have traded a center Pawn (his e5-Pawn) for a flank Pawn (White's c3-Pawn). Giving up a center Pawn for a flank Pawn is the sort of thing that you should only do if you are gaining something important in compensation... such as White in the Open Sicilian, who gives up his d4-Pawn for Black's c5-Pawn but gains advantages in time, space and development to compensate.

This is what I think the game you're suggesting looks like: 

If I made a mistake, let me know.

I was actually suggesting that White castle first (before pushing d2-d4), and I was assuming that the Black Bishop would retreat to a5, not c5...

... but yes, basically.

If black goes exd4, will that make it easier for white to set up a combination?

In that case:

The more open the position is, the more White's edge in time and development will count.

The less central influence Black has (eg: by trading off his e5-Pawn), the easier it will be for White's pieces to set up on aggressive squares.

Something like that, yes.

By the time black has managed to have sufficiently defended his E5 after going exd4 and before moving his knight in order to set up his pawn structure, will white already be placed on aggressive squares?

Once white is fully set up on aggressive squares will white be ready to launch a combination?

First, if Black trades with exd4, he doesn't need to defend that Pawn anymore; it's off the board.

Now, if Black tries to reach something like the Hanham, it goes something like this (White did not play perfectly):

But what if white was to play perfectly?

@KMMCS88

12. e5 busts that.

The Hanham pretty well requires the Bishop on e7 (not a5), in order to stop exactly this sort of thing.

I suppose you could insert h7-h6 to prevent White's Bg5... but now you are losing even MORE time.

What is the fascination with this Bb4 idea? It simply a BAD move. Why waste time and effort trying to patch it together with band-aids?

good to see you back!

Why does 12.e5 bust it?