For White, is the French Tarrasch a good way to avoid a lot of the theory of 3. Nc3?

I've spent weeks studying the French Steinitz and now looking at 3. Nd2, it seems to avoid a lot of studying (especially the Winawer). I have a decent handle on the Steinitz although I still feel I have a lot more study left and I haven't even began to look at the Winawer which requires a much longer look than the Steinitz. Should I just dump 3. Nc3 for the Tarrasch?

What's wrong with the King's Indian Attack? 1. e4 e6 2. d3

Nothing wrong with it. A well-prepared Black can will be able to equalize, but it's fine--if you like those kinds of positions

It requires very precise play in late opening and early middle-game.

There is one prominent poster on this forum who believes 3. Nd2 is just a bad move and allows black to fully equalize.

I am not that person, however. I think it's a very good move not particularly worse than 3. Nc3, and leads to different sorts of positions. With that said, you still need to study. I've seen players rated even as high as ~2k OTB play things like 3. Nd2 c5 4. c3?! against me lol

I guess no matter what you play, you have homework to do 

The Tarrasch is certainly less theoretical than the Nc3 main lines, but if you have already invested so much time in studying the Steinitz, it would be a pity to abandon it. You can also cut down on theory if you play a sideline against the Winawer, like 4. a3. In practice, it is better to know a sideline really well than the main lines superficially.

That's what it takes to play the critical line, i.e. the line where you have the best prospects to get an opening advantage.

That's also true. If you've spent a lot of time studying the Steinitz, spending the time to learn an entire new thing, especially when the Steinitz is a very serious try vs the French, might not be worth it. GM Harikrishna's course on a certain other website recommends 4. exd5 vs the Winawer as well. That opening gives white many playable sidelines with chances at a tiny advantage, while the mega-theory is also probably pretty good for white but requires lots of work. 

However, if you haven't done all that much work within the Steinitz and you just don't like what you're getting, or if you just want a new thing against the French, the Tarrasch is a good weapon for sure. Black does have many playable moves vs the Tarrasch, but quantity and quality are not the same thing. 

GM Michael Adams has a winning percentage of 60.7 % playing 3.Nd2 in 140 games. So much for equalizing.

DO you mean White plays 3.exd5? That's the Exchange Variation, and it was supposed to be harmless and drawish, but it's not, really. It's perfectly OK

In the game you presented white's attack only worked so well because black handled his queenside counterplay so poorly. If he handles it well white (more often then not) will be struggling playing the KIA.

To be fair, any specialist in any white opening at that high a level, especially when a lot of the opposition is not as strong as such a beast as Mickey, will have a high score like that.

But yes I agree that his endorsement speaks for something. That poster I think has been muted recently anyway. Lol

Indeed. It's gotta be more then good for anybody way below Adams level.

I think you should do a little research when it comes to Michael Adams. He has beaten pretty much every respected french player there is out there by playing the Tarrasch, and has been doing it convincingly. The list of players he has beaten, many of them repeatedly ( like Gurevich, against whom he has a plus 7 score in the Tarrasch, maybe even higher) is very impressive to say the least. Grandmaster Moskalenko in his book the flexible French calls Adams the Terminator with the white pieces in the chapter on the Tarrasch.

I think you have conclusively proved that you should definitely use the Tarrasch French--if you are Michael Adams!

That doesn't contradict anything I said. 

@bleemu, i used to play the KIA, but I found that if Black knew what they were doing (castles queenside), Black had an edge. 

I play the Tarrasch (Nd2) now, and @OP, I think that its a lot easier. The plans and formation are pretty similar, and even if Black deviates from the so-called "main lines", White can still just follow their general plans. Here's a cool game where I outplayed a 2300+ FM in an otb game (only to blunder in time trouble) using the Tarrasch

a3!! 1-0

Well it kinda does. I was reffering to your claim that his opponents were not as strong as Michael was, when in fact if you take a look at chessgames.com, the vast majority of his opponents are actually world class players.