How good is Lev Albert's chess course series?

How does his book of strategy compare to Silman's Reassess Your Chess?

Read my comments on Lev Alburt's "Comprehensive Chess Course" here...

Chess Courses - Instructional Resources...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/beginners-chess-course-instructional-resources

then compare that to my comments on Jeremy Silman's "How To Reassess Your Chess" here...

Good Chess Books for Beginners and Beyond...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/good-chess-books-for-beginners-and-beyond

The books are intended for two entirely different audiences.   Lev Alburt's course is an introductory chess course intended for beginner-novice players, up to about 1500 Elo.   Silman's book is targeted to experienced, intermediate-expert level (1500+ Elo) players.

 

I read Bruce Plandolphini's Weapons of chess years ago and found it to be a fast easy reading that does not require a chessboard. It was a long list of quick introduction to everything. 

I see in your list, Play Winning Chess is said to be a must read, but is recommended as more basic than Weapons of Chess, the only positional book I've completed. Should I read Play Winning Chess? Or should I go straight to 6 Power Moves of Chess? I read that Play Winning Chess has typos every page that make it hard to follow games.

In the introductory remarks of my "Good Chess Books....." article, note the following comment.....

 "In a few instances I have recommended that books be read in a certain order.  This because the follow-on or later book(s) may assume a familiarity or knowledge of principles or ideas introduced in the previous book(s), which in that sense could be considered as containing prerequisite information."

and in the Comments section following said article I suggest to read my 2nd note (of January 1, 2021) which begins.....

"A note to readers of my Good Chess Books article regarding my point of view in creating it."

the note further elaborates on the issue of the order I suggest that books be read.

As for possible typos in Seirawan's "Play Winning Chess".  I can say that if and where they exist they are few and far between (there are not typos on every page), and should not deter you from reading this excellent book.  Assuming you are considering reading it together with other books I have recommended (for example Pandolfini's excellent "Weapons of Chess"), they are listed in the roughly the order in which I suggest they be read (based on the reasoning above).  However you are free to read them in any order you prefer.  My suggestions are not commandments, set in stone.  They are simply recommendations based on the reasoning I have gone to lengths to try to explain in my comments.

As for which to read first - "The Six Power Moves of Chess" (TSPMC) vs "Play Winning Chess" (PWC)...

If you believe that you have a good handle on the four primary elements of chess - Force, Time, Space and Pawn Structure (i.e., the essence and point of PWC) - and are able to make use of these concepts effectively in your games, then you can skip PWC and proceed to study TSPMC. 

Otherwise, I would always recommend PWC as a "must read" (i.e., to be absorbed sooner rather than later) to any player who has any doubts about their understanding or skill in making use of the four primary elements.

I was a bit of a Lev Alburt fan after reading volume 2 of his comprehensive chess course. So I bought all of the follow up books that he wrote - the ones with “for the tournament player” in the title plus a few others. They’re not great books though. They’re ok, but there’s better books out there. 300 positions IS a good book though.
With regards to reassess your chess - that book would be quite a step up from “weapons of chess”. Might be better to go for “chess strategy” or “the amateur’s mind” first.
Some others you might want to consider are “idiots guide to chess” which has a section on strategy, and “chess strategy workbook” by Todd Bardwick. Both have lots of test positions where you’re supposed to find the screamingly obvious strategic move. They weren’t always obvious to me though.

I agree that 300 positions is good. As for his tactics book, I bought it before and found the problems very time consuming. He gives ones that require deep thinks several moves deep down different branches. Don't explore far enough, and a move looks winning. 2 moves deeper, and it is losing. He asks the reader to look at the position for 10 minutes before reading his commentary. I gave the book away. I recently bought it again but am also much stronger than before.

His rules of thumb is good too.