Are you confusing the Tarrasch Variation of the French (1 e4 e6; 2 d4 d5; 3 Nd2) with the Tarrasch Defence in the Queen's Gambit Declined (1 d4 d5; 2 c4 e6; 3 Nc3 c5)?

They are separate openings.

Um ... if you're trying to be snarky you're just sounding uninformed.

The Tarrasch Defense is 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 (or Nf3) c5. Black accepts an isolated queen's pawn in exchange for piece activity.

It's been used at a very high level by, in addition to Tarrasch himself, of course, Kasparov, Gligoric, Spassky, Nunn, Chandler, and Illescas Cordoba.

The Tarrasch French also can feature an IQP, which is probably why Tarrasch liked it (he felt the IQP was a positional advantage). 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.ed Qxd5 and white ends up with an IQP in many lines.

Thanks, but no thanks. Why would I want to be "snarky"?

I know it quite well. I simply mistyped the wrong opening, what I meant was solely the Terrasch, not the Terrasch defence.

No doubts there.

"I find the Tarrasch defence is better accompanied by the French defence". In other words when the French defence is played in conjuction with the Terrasch, which as you rightly pointed out is known as the Tarrasch Variation of the French (1 e4 e6; 2 d4 d5; 3 Nd2). When I typed the Tarrasch defence, what I really meant was the Tarrasch, not the Tarrasch defence.

Funny. The Tarrasch French is one of the few variations I never even considered playing or testing for that matter. It avoids the Winawer variation, so why would I want to play it? I like playing against the Winawer more than I do against any other French line. The Boguljubow variation leads to exactly the kind of play I want against the French. It's the Classical French (3. ... Nf6 4. ... Be7) that I find challenging for white, which is why in the past I bored black players to death with the exchange variation. Only recently have I gone back into the Classical and Alekhine-Chatard. On black's early exd4 lines, I can only say they're serious draw attempts.

In the past I've used somewhat a mainlin'ish QGD, I did okay with that. I'd just sit there in my fortress-like formation in the center, wait for the white inaccuracies to creep in and tip the balance. Stopped using it because it's a little too inflexible compared to the Indian defenses and far too passive to match my play in the Dutch defense. That and I think white d4 players want black to play d5.

I've actually been tinkering with the French Tarrasch more, first because I'm comfortable with an IQP, and secondly because of some gambit lines that are a lot of fun to play. (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nd7 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ngf3!?)

I try not to get caught up in what my opponents want me to play or not play, and rather focus on what I want to play. That being said, I had pretty good results with the Cambridge Springs defense, but I ended up prefering the Tarrasch for two reasons:

First, even when black wins in the CS, it's usually because he picks up a pawn and then has to consolidate and slowly free his pieces, eventually winning a very technical game. Not fun.

Second, some lines of the exchange QGD are just too damn passive to be enjoyable, to me.

Petrov is a good defense pra to fight for ties up to without being restricted. In some cases it can take the acute position.
Another good defense against 1.e4 and the C78 line in which the blacks develop the bishop for c5.
I prefer to play Siciliana with Cc6 to put and I require study and knowledge sufficiently.

With the greatest of respect, the Petroff is boring!!!

After e4 e5, Nf3 Nf6, Nxe5 d6, Nf3 Nxe4 Lasker used to play Qe2 (which forces Qe7) against Marshall to take out any possible sting out of marshall's favourite opening. This is very drawish, as is generally the Petroff defence.

Against d4 an opening with bite is the Leningrad Dutch. It is true that black slightly compromises his pawn structure - but he is playing for a win! The nice thing about the dutch is that you can play it against d4,c4,b4, Nf3, g3, b3 too - so it is less book learning.

I've played the Dutch for a long time, in recent months I've gone for the Nimzo-Indian/Queen's Indian duo to play something that's a little more common and sound. You can set the QID formation up against virtually any opening other than 1. e4 (which is true of many 1. d4 defenses).

I like the Dutch, still play it when I feel like it. However, I prefer the Classical Dutch, which sets up with e6-Be7 (or e6-Bb4) rather than the Leningrad setup with g6-Bg7. The other bishop would mostly come out by means of b6-Bb7 (or d6-Bd7 if I'm in real a solid mood). That in part explains why I play the NID/QID combo now, apart from f5, they are very similar.
I don't like the 'target' on g6 that exists in the Leningrad. Besides, in many cases, I've developed my Queen via Qe8-Qg6. It cannot get out that way in the Leningrad.