Is this really a Queen's Gambit?

Today I heard commentators say this was a Queen's Gambit. However, when you look it up it defines it as a Catalan. Yes, it might sound like a combination of the Reti due to the early Nf3, but seriously, we could then call a Benko Gambit also a Reti then. Shouldn't we stick to the labeling that fits most? To me this is clearly a Catalan and not a QG. If you feel this is a QG please argue this position then with sound reasoning.

Is it not just a Queens Gambit which transposed to a Catalan? 

Opening names can certainly be tricky, especially when the moves have transposed as here.  Still, the Explorer calls it

Queen's Gambit is either accepted or declined. If you played 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 is that Italian or Spanish? We don't say Bb5 has transposed to the Spanish or Bc4 has transposed to the Italian. 

If you play moves in a different move order I don't see how that constitutes being a transposition.

If you order a hamburger, you might order it with cheese. But, would you order a hamburger with cheesecake to replace the first scenario which would be a flat slice of orange colored cheese and not a pie shaped yellowish one?

Obviously if you play the moves out, there appears to be something specifically characteristic of a Catalan that is missing from the QGD.

Can anyone substantiate a claim it is a QG? Maybe this was intentional on David Howell's part, he said it was a QGA initially, not a QGD. Is this to really question the merits of it being labeled a QG at all?

If you immediately say, "No, it can't be a QGA, it's either a QGD or a transposed Catalan" have you "accepted" this idea of transposition from just a few moves? 

Anything can be a transposition then. Reti transposed to a London. What is the point of calling things so early on and saying it is a transposition?

It's a Catalan.

as far as i know the catalan is under the umbrella of the queen's gambit group of openings. i think 1 d4 d5 2 c4 will be classified as queen's gambit with some appended name depending on what black does later, but it is still the queen's gambit section of the eco.

the catalan will require a pawn on e6 and on g3 at minimum. if there are knights on f6 and f3 it is still a catalan.

the game will be tagged as a reti if white starts with 1 nf3 but it should change the opening name to whatever happens for the next few moves.

i think the qga applies to positions where d4 d5 c4 dxc4 is played, but white does not play g3

the game features dxc4 after white has committed to g3 so technically it is still the catalan, specifically the open catalan whenever black takes on c4.

"as far as i know the catalan is under the umbrella of the queen's gambit group of openings"

MCO-15 puts it under "Indian Openings".

It’s a Catalan. 

So basically they were just shilling "The Queen's Gambit" series yesterday?

You can fast forward to 1:25:30 in the video below.

They are calling it a QG, maybe not specifically QGA, but they are referring to it as "accepted", then a Catalan variation of the QG. 

It started off as a Queen's Gambit but immediately transposed into an Open Catalan (by Black's 4th move).

What is the basis for calling it a Queen's Gambit? Literally speaking, there is no such thing as a Queen's Gambit. It is either a QGA or a QGD. Either you are pregnant or you aren't.

Why not call it an Indian opening? The moves went in exactly the same order. 

Both QGA and QGD are Queen's Gambit.

What is this, then?

The above position starts with the QGD move order, but it could be another opening. If we can define a transposition as a deviation from a prescribed default move order, then this would be "more" of a QGD than the game played where d5 was delayed. Also, as you can see after g3, dxc4 was immediately played. 

How can you decline or accept in this case when white is the one who I understand would be the one offering the gambit. Or are we saying black is giving a solicitation to offer a gambit which is the solicitation being declined by virtue of g3 in the game. Further, it is confirmed by dxc4 and then Bg2 defining it as a Catalan.

Aren't there openings with the word "deferred" that could be applied here in the same way? Also, if you don't like that, we also have words like "Modern" which refer to non-typical move orders. The prefix "Neo-" gets added too. 

I am sure we could find a way to delineate the game played as not a QG since there are no clear main lines to define it as a QGD after ~10 moves.

Even something weird like with Benko Gambit Half Accepted could be applied here if you don't mind treating the term "half accepted" different from just one pawn.

We seem to be arguing about definitions, rather than about chess.

A chess opening is defined by its positions, not its move order.

The following two examples are PRECISELY the same opening. Both are QGD. Neither one is "more" of a QGD than the other.

"We seem to be arguing about definitions, rather than about chess."

If we can agree on definitions, then it can make it easier to understand chess. I'll leave it at that.

"A chess opening is defined by its positions, not its move order."

Where does it say this? While looking into my question/observation on the video commentary, I got thinking about also what makes a transposition.

If we are to include "transposition", do we not also have to include sequence of moves in order to define the transposition? This would lead me to believe more that a chess opening should be defined based on the collective group of moves and not just one position.

This isn't an issue of calling something Russian Game or Petrov, Zukertort or Reti. I think it would be better to postpone judgment.

As stated before we don't call 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 an Italian or Spanish. We wait until Bc4 or Bb5 are played.

With this d4 opening line, we don't see a typical d5 played before c4. Hence, the gambit is nonexistent. Take the Marshall Attack as an example. Bear with me, I am not 100% versed in all this, but if I am not mistaken the gambit part of is that there is a sacrifice.

In the Carlsen Dubov game, there is a c4 pawn that is eventually taken by the rook. Does this substantiate a white attack/gambit as seen by black in the Marshall Attack? Is this a missing label for what we are seeing? We don't have anything better to call the group of moves, so we resort to position and say it is a QG "something" instead of a "Carlsen Attack" for example like we do with the Marshall Attack. I am sure Carlsen/Dubov weren't the first to do this sequence, but the point is there.

One final thought on labeling openings based on position only instead of looking at the group of moves is to look at the difference between Najdorf Sicilian and Richter-Rauzer Sicilian. Which would you call the following?

r1bqkb1r/1p2pppp/p1np1n2/6B1/3NP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 2 7
r1bqkb1r/1p2pppp/p1np1n2/6B1/3NP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 0 7

I have to admit ignorance in here, I don't know why there is a 2 and a 0. It is white to move in both positions. I can't find an explanation online. So, I don't want to post just one of them because if this is a pivotal point you could associate the opening names accordingly. So, looking at the position as it is without the 0 and 2, what would you call the following (I'll snap a screenshot instead)?

That's a Richter-Rauzer. The position of the Nc6 is diagnostic. The a6 move is not, since Black's a6 is played in a huge variety of Sicilian lines... Najdorf, Dragodorf, Scheveningen, Shvesnikov, Pelikan, Fischer-Sozin, Velimirovic...

I have a hard time understanding your point. A chess position is a POSITION. Not a history. No matter what sequence of moves led to the position, those moves are GONE. Vanished into the past. The ever-moving finger writes, and moves on. Now is now, and right now you need to deal with the position in front of you. A focus on fixing a particular label on the specific order of moves that led to the given position isn't chess... it's stamp collecting.

If i recognise the posting style correctly this is the turkey guy under yet another new account. In which case you may as well be having a conversation with a housebrick. 

Yeah, I know who it is.

"I have a hard time understanding your point. A chess position is a POSITION. Not a history."

Are you claiming a chess position is a chess opening?

I am not saying a position is a history. I am saying a chess opening could be a history because I don't see a chess position as a chess opening.

You had to decide on calling it a Richter Rauzer instead of a Najdorf because of other openings. It seems like you are just arbitrarily choosing to call it a Richter Rauzer. Nc6 wouldn't get played later in the Najdorf?