Why did Magnus play 1. d4 with 2. Nf3 move order?

I noticed in the WCC 2018 he plays 1. d4 with this move order before transposing into the QGD. I know that this move order usually exists at my level for London/Colle players, but I was wondering if there was a deeper meaning to this move order (e.g. avoiding certain lines/openings). My best guess is that it avoids the Budapest but Magnus couldn't have seriously thought that Fabi was going to play it in the WCC match (no disrespect to the hardcore Budapest players, I've lost my fair share of games to this line lol). 

Against 1. d4 2. c4 Caruana often plays the Nimzo and mainly d5 systems against Nf3 lines. This was a way for Carlsen to get what he wanted - Queen's Gambit and no Nimzo - while giving him the opportunity to deviate if Caruana doesn't play 2... d5 straight away and go for 2... e6 or something more exotic.

I guess, but can't you still avoid the Nimzo with 2. c4? Just play 3. Nf3 and maybe you might have to deal with more options like the Queen's Indian or the Benoni, but given Caruana's usual openings, it is still very likely to end in the QGD. 

That's the point. If you intend to play Nf3 anyway to avoid the Nimzo then 2. Nf3 is more flexible than 2. c4 and then 3. Nf3; meanwhile you avoid the Grünfeld, the Modern Benoni, the QID, the Benkö...

oooh i didnt think about the grunfeld. that's a good point.

It ultimately doesn't matter a whole lot. Caruana isn't really a Grunfeld/KID player, and I don't see him playing these dynamic openings in a WCC where a loss can tip the match dramatically in favor of the opponent. This move order doesn't avoid either of those anyways.

I suppose maybe Magnus has the option of heading back into the London on 2...e6? But probably not as likely as playing 3.c4 there

It’s probably some Transposition wizardry that we normal people can’t comprehend. Or maybe for no real reason either.

Equality doesn’t really mean bad for white.

I didn't know the London was refuted

Interesting, I wonder why so many titled players recommend it and why top players play it then. 

If we’re being honest, magnus played the London like four times.

Including this one. But I guess this Magnus guy and his opponent aren't very good players

What database are you even referring to anyways? I have not come across a database in which Black scores significantly higher than White in the London, if at all

1. That's not what refuted means, stop misusing the term

2. Databases cannot evaluate a position

3. Black gets no advantage in the London, it is equality

By the way, (according to Lakdawala) if white plays typical London moves against 1...d6 or 1...g6, then he may be slightly worse. That's not what I'm talking about.

Regular London System, as in 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 and 1.d4 Nf6 Bf4 is just completely equal, so exactly the opposite of being refuted.

I wasn’t saying that Magnus wasn’t good. Please don’t just randomly draw conclusions from things I didn’t say. I intended to say that claiming an opening’s worth by saying “Top player X played this before” when top player X hasn’t played a lot of games In that opening isn’t a very convincing. For example, Magnus once played the Norwegian Defense against Michael Adams.

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Nf6!? 3. e5 Nh5

and now Magnus (black) equalized immediately after

4.Be2 d6! =

(although Magnus eventually lost, it wasn’t the opening’s fault)

1-0 Adams-Carlsen, 2010 (I think it was 2010, I can check if you want.)

I could say that the Norwegian defense is a sound opening because Magnus has played it before. Clearly that’s not a good way to justify the opening. (4.Nf3 is much better.) I could also say that it’s a good opening because I beat a National Master with it in otb. But I would simply not say that he was a floor 2000, and that he played a bad move (4.g4)… not to mention that a NM is probably just an early morning rating point gift for an FM like you

Last comment. The London is not "bad". It is a perfectly playable opening at all levels, and has been used by just about every top level player at all time controls. 

According to Chessbase:

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 scores 49%

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bf4 scores 52%

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Bf4 scores 52%

1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 c5 3.e3 scores 49%

There is no significant advantage/disadvantage in any line. If you're gonna insist that the London is bad for White, then there's nothing more I can say.

"The databases prove it."  You're throwing around the word "prove" pretty loosely. You would have to have to idea of the rating composition of each group before drawing any firm conclusions

That doesn’t really prove anything, because databases only show the most popular moves, which may or may not be the best move.

guys i asked about a move order and not for a thesis on the London. im not at a level where the opening matters much anyway. i just wanna know the intentions behind the move order besides magzybogues just messing around.