I think the most helpful substitution for “resist” in this sense of the word would be “successfully repel” or “fight off”, so let's apply that to your first sentence:
I can[not] [fight off] not to eat apples.
Well, that doesn't sound right, so let's fix the double-negative:
I can't [fight off] to eat apples.
Still not perfect. Let's talk about what you're actually fighting off. If someone asked what exactly it was that you couldn't fight off, you wouldn't answer “to eat apples”, you'd indicate the eating of the apples or the apples themselves as the "unrepellable" thing. Let's try those:
I can't [fight off] eating apples. → or → I can't resist eating apples.
I can't [fight off] apples. → or → I can't resist apples.
Much better! The only slight problem is that all of the above requires an understanding on the part of the listener that apples represent a strong temptation. Technically, you are resisting the urge to eat apples. In fact it's probably always best to make sure that your use of “resist” corresponds with a force or urge.
I can't resist to see you.
In this case, you are using “see” to describe the act of looking at someone. This is not idiomatic. Because “see” is such a general term, it is normally reserved for the most basic sense of being able to perceive something with your eyes or not. For example, in the expression “I can't wait to see you”, which you might say to someone you're expecting to visit you soon, “see” works because it marks the limit between zero visibility (the other person is elsewhere) and the requisite proximity for basic perception.
So let's try using “look at”, like you did in your explanation:
I can't resist to look at you.
Still doesn't work, because “to look at you” isn't the noun or noun phrase that “resist” requires in its current function as a transitive verb. The appropriate noun phrase would be “(the act of) looking at you”, or even more clearly “the urge to look at you”. Again, it's the urge that's the important piece of the “resist” puzzle.
That gives us:
I can't resist looking at you.
I can't resist the urge to look at you.
The above is grammatically correct, but it's still hyperbole. Since “can” generally represents a boundary of possibility sometimes it's used this way, to exaggerate a difficulty to the point of making something impossible, but obviously that's not technically the case so if you wanted a less dramatic statement you could say:
It's difficult for me to resist the urge to look at you.
And since this looking is therefore likely to be extended, you could say:
It's hard not to stare (at you).
This final example also has the advantage of capturing the other side of this struggle, because the verb “stare” tends to indicate a rudeness (such as that from which you're struggling to refrain).
Best Answer
What does "I don't think so especially that she can really play great tennis after a year break" mean?
This is a transcript of an interview. Note that "I don't think so" is an answer to the question, "So for you nothing changes when she comes back?'
How were things before? Agnieszka Radwanska, who is giving the interview, and Maria Sharapova have been competitors, both top-ranked. Agnieszka is now ranked sixth among women; Sharapova has no formal ranking because she hasn't played for a year. So "I don't think so" means that nothing changes in terms of MS being a competitor to AR.
Nothing changes, "especially that she can play really play great tennis after a year break."
"especially that"--she might have said this better, but what could she mean? Especially since, especially because, especially in view of the fact that? AR recounts that MS can play great tennis after a year break. She is referring to a shoulder injury in which MS, in the top five, was out for a year and returned to come back, after a few defeats, to the top five.
AR goes on to say only positive things about MS--she won't lose match rhythm, she will be a dangerous opponent from the first round.
I am not an expert on seeds and the draw in tennis. However, the seeded players--the top 32--are set up so they don't play each other in the first round. The draw is (apparently) both the chart of who plays whom at each stage and the process of randomly drawing from successive seeds and eventually from unseeded players and placing them on the chart. If MS were seeded, AR would not have to play her in the first round. But in the present circumstances, a top-seeded player could end up playing her in the first round--and "for sure it's not going to be a good draw." This is further confirmation that AR views MS as a formidable opponent.
So again context matters--especially the question being answered, as well as the tennis histories of the two women and what AR is talking about when she speaks of "the draw." The OP is right.