It is amusing that the columnist cannot recommend the opening, grows impatient when White misses a forcing line - and has nothing to say when White wins.
I have added diagrams, changed the notation from descriptive to algebraic, and provided a few notes in blue. - Rick
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4 exd4 5.Bxf7+
It is interesting to meet with these variations from the ordinary dull methods. But this line of play cannot be recommended.
[Reaching the Jerome Gambit variation: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.d4 exd5]
6.Ng5+ Ke8 7.Qf3 Qe7
If now 7...Qf6 all of White's attack (?) vanishes. Black might even play 7...Ne5 at once.
8.O-O Ne5 9.Qb3 h6 10.Nh7
[Strange. Perhaps expecting 10...Rxh7? 11.Qxg8+ Qf8 12.Qxh7, winning. Black does not fall for the "trap".]
10...g6 11.f4 d3+ 12.Kh1 Ng4 13.f5 Qxh7
14.fxg6 Qxg6 15.Nc3 Qh5 16.Bf4 Nf2+
17.Rxf2 Bxf2 18.Rf1 Bd4 19.Nd5 Bb6
[Amazing. Ahead by a Bishop and a Rook, Black finds a move that gives himself a lost game.]
Much easier and simpler was 22.Qb5+ and mate in two moves.
22...Kd7 23.e5 Ne7 24.Qb5+ Nc6 25.Nf6+ Ke6 26.Qd5+ Kf5 27.e6+ Black resigned