Should my opponent resign just to respect fair play?

Here is the game http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1147824998

My opponen didn't resign even after he's left just with the king and I've got rook, knight and a pawn.

He's clearly was counting for a timeout. I mean, yes, buddy, you win, but it just not fair to count on timeout here, be the man and resign, what do you think?

Well, yes. Eh.. insulting) If I was him, I dont really know, maybe I would not resign as well (depending on my mood), but most of the time I'm in the mood to recognize I was behind. Can't wait everybody to be as genuine as I am :D :D :D

Thank you for your comment, Paul, I just gotta get it go, nothing bad has happened. I get your point: I had more time on thinking, he had to take his decisions faster. Pretty fair, sorry for this topic. Should be closed, really.

The point is that if you are going to play short time games, the clock is a bigger factor. You chose the time limits, you have to accept the consequences.

if normal people played chess, normal things would happen, but chess is chess so you gotta get real.

It is legal - but to be honest, It's not an example of fair play to me.

I don't see what's unfair about it.  He was able to play for a draw and he did.  Is he supposed to feel bad because his opponent couldn't manage to win with lots of material?

Well, quite clearly he showed zero respect for his opponent. Winning on time in long(er) games isn't a terribly noble thing to do. 

If you can't win in the time limit, why do you deserve to win?

it is a 10 minute game ffs. 

first rule of chess. learn what checkmate is.

God learn to mate faster idiot I mated a guy with 4 seconds on my clock in an otb tournament before

The game's a draw anyway, right?

No idiot it is not a draw

1. Consider the ratings of both players in the game.  The ability to checkmate with this material should not be taken for granted.
2. We don't know was the clock situation was late in the game.  Even though this was a relatively long game, White could have been very short on time.
3. White did not demonstrate good technique and wasted many moves.  The extra rook was not doing anything useful.
4. Anyone who makes an argument appealing to the opponent's "being a man" or "being a REAL man" is difficult to sympathize with.  Why say this? Black does not rely on White's permission or opinion to be a particular gender.  Don't be a moron.

What the heck does nobility have to do with this?  Is the OP really supposed to be rewarded despite not securing mate with a great material advantage in the agreed upon time?  If somebody drew me like that, I'd be kicking myself for not winning, not whining because my opponent wasn't nice enough to give up in the face of my material advantage.  

you'd kick yourself instead of whining ? in the head ?

errr...yes it is