How play style changes against various opponents

I'm curious as to how very skilled players (Masters, IMs, GMs, WGMs, NMs, etc.,) change how they play against lower ranked players. I'm also interested in what impacts that beyond what moves opponents play. Conversely, I'd like to know how lower ranked players approach playing against notably higher ranked opponents. Lastly, I'd like to know from all players if those types of games are fun to play, watch, or analyze. Thanks for reading and responding!

You say they play simply and make good moves. What do they do differently against equal opponents instead of playing simply and making good moves? Would anything be wrong with them playing simply and making good moves against an equal opponent?

GM vs GM with unambitious simple development will very likely lead to a draw. Their opponent isn't going to hand them any big chances like an amateur will.

GM vs NN, and the GM doesn't need mega theory, and they definitely don't need to inject any craziness into the position.

I read in the Soviet Chess Primer that it is better to make strong moves than clever ones. A top-tier player will never lose to an amateur by playing patient, solid, zero risk chess. Traps and surprises would almost be wasted as anyone under 2000 will likely GIVE them a weakness to prey on, without requiring any fancy maneuver or sneaky trick.

Lord knows I've lost games to inferior players by trying to be crafty. Lesson learned.

Some GM's play sharper openings in opens against lower rated players and avoid stuff like the QGD to avoid simplifications that might lead in to a draw

Wow, everyone. This is really fascinating to hear all your comments. I'm excited to learn even more on this, so please keep talking to me about it! It's really great to see such robust responses in such a short time, too, so thanks again! And, thanks for reading!

The advice I've always seen for when a weak player faces a GM (lets say in a simul) is that the weak player's best chance is to make it as sharp as possible. That way they have a puncher's chance (so to speak).

I've also heard the advice not to play a main line. Supposedly GMs will never be unhappy in a main line vs an untitled player.

"... Lars Bo Hansen has a talent for really relating to the 'average' club player. ... Hansen then follows this with a very thorough discussion of his three-step approach to preparation for a specific opponent ..." - Steve Goldberg, reviewing the 2008 book, How Chess Games are Won and Lost by GM Lars Bo Hansen

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093711/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review670.pdf

A fun example would be Kasparov's game against letterman. Read the commentary, too. It's great. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070486