I'm unsure at the moment as to whether the French is right for me and I should instead switch to using the Caro Kann as my main defense. I enjoy playing against the Exchange, Advance and 3.Nc3 variations, but it's 3.Nd2 I'm not as confident against. Against the Advance I play 3.b6 and against 3.Nc3 the Winawer, and after 4.e5 I can play it in "advance variation style" with 4.b6 which both seem to suit my positional style more than the usual messy, dynamic positions which are often created in the mainlines, and I'm usually more familiar with the middlegames than my opponents. However, since against 3.Nd2 it's more unsound to try and take it into a position similar to the advance variation with 3.Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 b6 it seems I'm either usually forced into the type of positions I hate by playing something like 5.c5 or to play something very solid, yet very passive like the Fort Knox (3.dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bd7). Any thoughts? Should I give it up as my main defense just because of this one variation even though I love playing against the others? 

I dont know what positions you are happy with, but in my opinion 3.c5 (elikses)is quite good, but I dont understand why you 'hate' 5...c5 in the 3... Nf6 line. Both those line result in fine positions for black, indeed 3.c5 I feel that black obtains fairly fast and easy equality. i suspect that it may not be the opening itself that gives you problems...you suggested that you like to find somewhat clean positional approaches to the other openings....but the tarrasch is usually favored by people who are quite good at positional play themselves, so they arent going to give you anything positional easily. anyway, take a look at 3.c5

I will. Thanks.

haha well I think it makes sense maybe I didnt explain it. In general it is not so much the openings themselves which cause most people problems, its opponents, the style that opponents play. see, the tarrasch is often favored by people with a certain attitude to the game which is different to people who play the winawer or advance variations. The tarrasch leaves a lot of options open for both sides. People who like to play this way are not going to be defeated by some 'system' approach like you referred to against the advance/winawer (same setup for both, and trying the same with the tarrash....in fact b6 is not all that bad idea vs tarrasch), they will beat you at that. You have to meet these sort of players head on, whether its the tarrasch or any other opening. I shouldn't say 'positional', its not that. Its more that you are trying to use a universal system in the french and the tarrasch is perfect for people who like variety.

@ red 3...be7 is not really off the beaten path, I saw it quite a lot. But it also doesnt really result in a different positions you get the same basic themantic stuff thet you see in the 3...nf6 lines, including the necessity of eventually playing c5. 3. a6 i saw a few times, and does result in a different position, and is interesting but I think white will probably keep an edge for a long time.

Black has problems to equalize against both 3.Nc3(The main line) and 3.Nd2(the positional line). Against 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.exd5 white gets a more pleasant position.

That seems to make sense. Based on Black's pawn structure after 4.exd5 it looks like he hasn't got a particularly "solid" position.

@ reb i didnt mean to offend you haha, i was playing the tarrash for about 10 years, started switching to the exchange lately... When michael adams and morozevich started playing the be7 line it quickly became the most popular of the 'off the beaten path' stuff, and a lot of people like to play new stuff... it was very deeply analyzed by those guys. And as i said, the same themantic stuff in the nf6 line very much applies so white can just play in a normal way.

black gets an isolated d pawn in the elikses variation, yes. It isnt really weak. isolated d pawns are magically never weak for either color. Whites attempts to get an advantage generally center on trying to use the d4 square and try eventually to make the d pawn weak, but if black prevent exchanging dark square bishops he has nothing to fear and can even get some nice activity.

Yes I am aware that IQPs in situations like this aren't "weak" and that they contain strengths and weaknesses. But playing the side with the IQP is usually going to require that you're a good attacker, which I'm certainly not. 

yes I remember one bad game against the g5 manouver. White has to be careful not to castle TOO quickly vs Be7 heh

The IQP in this case actually doesnt require that you are a strong attacker. Its just a very irritating position for white. Its not that black has the advantage or anything, but white simply lacks good ways to improve his position, whether or not you attack. You just need to know about 4 or 5 tricks that white may try, and then he will be just exhausted. After that white has no way to advance foward, and black could almsot just start shuffling back and forth aimlessly heh....its frusterating...

I always liked to see 4...qxd5. I think its a good move but there can be a lot of subtlety to it, both tactical and positional, lots of ways black can lose if he isnt very vigilant.

Is that it? Why did no-one tell me this before?!

When someone tries to play the Tarrasch Variation 3. Nd2 against me, I just exchange the pawns 3. ... dxe4 4. Nxe4. After the capture, it doesn't matter whether the knight came from c3 or d2, the position is the same. Then I am in the Rubinstein Variation, and, having taken White away from the game he wanted to play, I am on territory familiar to me. The Rubinstein is not the strongest continuation for Black, but it is sound, and my familiarity is most often an advantage. It also has the advantage of being able to be played against both 3. Nd2 and 3. Nc3 interchangeably, which relieves you of having to know a lot of variations.

the Rubenstien is fine, but the guy mentioned the fort knox and that he doesnt like it. Id hate to play this way also as black, so cramped and nothing to really proactively work toward.