Plan with Colle-Zukertort and QGD Tartakower

I, as White, frequently play Colle-Zukertort(C-Z) setup,
and as Black, Queen's Gambit Tartakower Variation against d4.

I know C-Z is regarded as a non-master opening and thus
it must have some drawbacks, but I'm wondering WHY.

I guess Queen's Gambit Tartakower Variation is okay in master-level,
and its setup is almost the same as Colle's setup.

As above, almost same.
(The placement of kingside Bishop looks different but
Be2 is also okay with Colle-Zukertort, I think)

So my interest is "why the one is gimmick and the other is authentic?"

... below is what I thought with my poor brain.
I thought that the difference is their plans.
In C-Z, White usually plays 0-0, Ne5, f2-f4, Rf3-h3, then launch direct kingside attack (making the center as stable as possible),
on the other hand, in QGD Tartakower, Black hardly plans kingside attack but
strikes White's central core(d4) with ...c5 followed by ...Rc8 and so on.

So, (if my thought above is correct), where is this difference of plans coming from?
Why is the one a incorrect plan, and is the other good plan?
How can we recognize a plan is correct or incorrect?

I think generally a pawn-structure generates a plan,
but I'm not sure what the pawn-structure of the C-Z or Tartakower is talking to us.

... sorry for lengthy description and my poor English.
Thank you for reading.

Thank you Conzipe! After posting this, I considered a little more.
Recently I'm feeling that, in high level games "attack" is based on
some tangible advantage, e.g. space, piece activity, weakened King and so on.

I'm thinking the automatic kingside attack is silly, because in the position of the setup, 

• White has no particular advantage of space in kingside or piece activity
• Black's King is healthy
• Black can open up the center so that wing-attack never succeeds

As you(Conzipe) said, good Bishop must be very important.
I'm also wondering that why Nimzo-Indian gives away it rather early.
Doubling opponent's pawns is really worthwhile? (this is not a serious question for me yet because I don't feel like playing Nimzo)

Thank you for your anwer again!

The main point of the Nimzo is to stop white from playing e4 and gaining space, but also not striking directly in the centre until it is beneficial.

The first move, Nf6, controls e4, a central square, without occupying any central squares, a hypermodern idea. e6 prepares the release of the f8 bishop, pre-empting the move Nc3, a typical continuation of white's plan. After Nc3, Bb4 pins the knight, preventing it defending e4, and further disallowing white to play e4.

The sacrifice of the bishop pair is not, for Nimzo players, as important as directing what options white has available. Reducing his flexibility.

Thank you Jonathan & Conzipe.
Umm,,, I abstractly understand that
Nimzo tries to control light central squares, preventing e4.
Delicate pawn play looks needed.
It would take decent time&study to grasp how to convert the control of e4 into win.

>>Conzipe vs. Mokasp
Nice pressure against doubled pawns, nice pawn advance and nice outpost of the Knight!
I'd like to play such pawn manuevoring in my game:D

You got it!

Almost everyone in their chess growth looks for some kind of "automatic kingside attack opening" (often for white or black!) -- for me it was the stonewall -- but the truth is you can only get a kingside attack when you have a good enough position; because otherwise it's a waste of time of gathering pieces to the kingside, hitting a brick wall and ignoring the center (which is what truly allows pieces to be active in the first place; alternatives like kingside play are only there when play in the center is difficult for either player).

So as white it can be considered a small waste to go so many moves to allow black to develop a solid foundation when his life could be more difficult. Of course you do avoid more theory this way, but making it your only opening is really going to limit your options in the long term because there's only so many dynamic possibilities for a quiet opening like this, and, if someone knows you're playing this, it's not hard to find something reasonable against it and you'll look very predictable.

The tartakower is more respected because black is understanding that he will have to outplay his opponent and take advantage of mistakes before he can get aggressive and until then keep everything solid. There are more aggressive options -- that tend to involve certain concessions to white in exchange for a sharper game -- but there's nothing that can give black -- or white for that matter -- an automatic attack for nothing!