Chess.com

I saw the free bishop but missed the free rook

Same :-)

This problem is a time trap.  When you try to solve in a few seconds you don't have time to look at the entire board.   If you see the rook capture first, you get it right.  If you see the bishop capture first, you get it wrong.  Take out the time factor and this problem would be rated about 700.    I wonder if people are really improving their chess when they are hurrying so much they miss easy stuff like this.

I didn't think my chess was improving either but the faster you can analyze good individual moves (such as the free bishop) the faster you can sweep the entire board and select the best of them. You also have to keep an eye out for what your opponent has up his sleeve too. The great move you were planning might be a decoy.

Good puzzle.

Hm, not sure about this one. I saw the option of taking the rook versus taking the bishop. It took me a couple of seconds (maybe 10?) to conclude that there were no hidden advantages to taking the bishop and therefore took the rook: score +1. If only people were less greedy to take the rook so quickly the average time would have been a bit higher  and so would be my score!

I'm surprised that this was from a master game. 

Blitz game, may be?

One of the fallacies of chess improvement (as is the case in many endeavors), is that in order be able to do something quickly you should practice it quickly. The truth is that in order perform quickly you must practice OFTEN! Speed comes with practicing something often. There is really nothing you can do to "speed up" your ability to solve tactics other than solving a awful lot of problems.

Seeing tactical possibilities in chess is a matter of pattern recognition. You are not likely to quickly find patterns you haven't seen before.

Also, don't make the mistake of trying to solve every problem no matter how long it takes. Unless you are trying to train your ability to calculate variations (which is different from the tactics training we're talking about here), you should spend no more than two minutes on any puzzle. If you can't find the solution by then, look it up, as you clearly do not recognize the pattern.

If you study a book of tactics where most of the problems take you more than 5 minutes to solve, the puzzles are too hard for you. You simply are not recognizing the patterns. Tactics training is all about increasing the number of patterns you can recognize, which means volume, volume, volume!!! I can't stress that enough. If you want to get better at chess, make it a life-long habit of solving 30 or more problems every day, taking no more than 1 - 2 minutes per each.

IM Pruess recommends twenty minutes per day, every day. 

I completly disagree with you, Ralfinator.

I think it is much more important to find the solution at the end then to quickly make the first tempting move you see without properly calculate the outcome!

And i also believe that the normal procedure of your getting faster is not by doing everything quickly and then hopeing that your success rate will increase; rather by spending the time you need to find the correct solution and then with practice you will eventually get faster.

Chess is 99% tactics.  FM and renouned chess instructor Dan Heisman said this:

The goal of studying basic tactis repeatedly is not to be able to solve them; we assume most players can do that easily. The goal is to be able to quickly and accurately recognize them when they show up in a game, unannounced.

@VanillaBean: Yes, but i was talking about the way you get to being able to quickly recognize them. And that way i believe is through spending as much time as necessary to solve them. And with practise the time you need will eventually fall. I still do not see any point in makeing quick guesses that might be quick and correct, but still a guess...