The Tarrasch is under a cloud currently with some new discoveries for white in lines starting with 6. dxc5!

In the old main lines, with best play, white keeps a palpable edge. 

Below 2000, none of this matters and even the Englund has some pratcocal value. 

I think he meant two points, since a pawn is worth one point and a knight is worth three (or 2.5).

I have been playing the Tarrasch for many years and I plan to study it sometime in future. I find with the Tarrash (for that matter what ever opening I play), I usually win against players lower rated than I, struggle and lose against those higher rated. But it's always good.

hahaha, generally thats how it works 

I can counter that theory.  I don't play the French any more, but I can tell you that, speaking as a 1900 to 2000 player then, about 2055 now, that I beat many, many, MANY higher rated players.  Especially those that played the Alekhine-Chatard Attack, which I have a perfect record against playing 6...c5 instead of accepting with 6...Bxg5.  However, I have many, many, MANY losses against 1700 baffoons that played the Exchange, and I tried too hard to win.

That's why now I don't play a defense that features the "Exchange Variation".  The Modern Defense kicked butt last night, and it will continue to on my board when I'm Black!  Works against e4 or d4!

yes so black is up two pawns since a knight is worth 3 is it not?

No. When talking about material imbalances, if you say Black is up two pawns, it means he has two pawns more than White. Otherwise you say Black is up a piece for a pawn, as in this case.

its alot easier to say black is up two pawns tho

It may be easier, but it's also completely wrong and no serious chess player will know what you're talking about. It might make sense to you, but if you think of material as having such a static value, it will hamper your chess progression. A knight for a pawn is not worth the same as two extra pawns. I would much rather have a knight for a pawn in most situations this early in the game, while two extra pawns could be totally useless in the form of isolated, tripled rook pawns, for example.

Expertise87 is correct of course.

A knight is not ALWAYS worth three pawns. That's why with any chart of piece values it will say "RELATIVE Value of the pieces." A White knight on e6 and a White knight on a1 are not of equal value. In fact, the same White knight on e6 is likely of greater value than a White ROOK on a1 with White pawns on a2 and b2 and a White knight on b1.

I feel like I've heard some masters use "pawns" in place of "points" in material on this website.  I don't exactly do the same, but it seems interchangeable enough.

agreed